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

I will make a few opening remarks about the health budget as a whole, but I also have available with me my parliamentary colleagues the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, who will be able to make comments in his area, and the Parliamentary Secretary for Mental Health and the Parliamentary Secretary for Health, who will also be able to make comments in their areas.

The 2013-14 budget continues Labor's record of strong investment in health, with record spending again in the health portfolio. One of the key initiatives of the most recent budget is the world-leading cancer care package, a new $226.4 million package that will reinforce our position as the world's leader in cancer research, prevention and treatment. Australians now have the best cancer survival rates in the world, and we intend as a government to continue to invest, protect and promote that lead. Every Australian has been touched by cancer, either themselves as sufferers or by knowing someone who has been touched by cancer, and we are committed as a government to continuing to promote research, treatment, care and cure.

This budget is also committed to investing record amounts in public hospitals: more doctors, more nurses, more hospital beds, more acute services, more subacute services and more transition services. We are also expecting to invest $1.3 billion over the next four years in additional funding to help Australians see a GP. We have historic high levels of bulk-billing today, with rates at 82.4 per cent for Australians going to visit a GP, and 76½ per cent overall bulk-billing rates. These historic highs have been achieved with the cooperation of our excellent health and medical workforce here in Australia, and they paint a sharp contrast to the days when the Leader of the Opposition was health minister and bulk-billing rates fell to 67 per cent.

We are also investing in aged care services, and my colleague the minister will speak about aged care services. This budget alone allocates $14.9 billion for public hospitals in 2013-14, an increase of $871 million on last year. Unfortunately, this comes in the face of some severe cutbacks in health spending by states and territories. I am concerned that despite our increased investment—almost $1 billion extra between 2012 and 2013-14—we continue to see, for example, $3 billion of spending cuts in Queensland, and $3 billion of cuts in New South Wales in its last budget. We have a new Queensland budget out today, and I hope and expect that some of that funding has been restored, because we have seen the ill-effects of the cuts in the health systems of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria in particular every single day as patients are turned away from hospitals.

Our relationship with the states has changed, despite this extra investment in hospitals. We have invested a great deal in setting up hospitals to make the transition to activity-based funding. We have invested in new buildings, new surgical equipment, new wards and new beds.

We are transitioning to a time when activity based funding will be the way that hospitals increase their funding. We have made a commitment of an extra $16.4 billion of funding to the states and territories between now and the end of the decade. But our relationship will change. The Commonwealth will bear an increased share of funding as activity increases. There are billions and billions of dollars in extra support available and, of course, there are reward payments for states that meet their targets. But it will be important for states to increase their funding and to continue to improve the care of their patients to continue to see growth at both a state and Commonwealth level for the hospital system.

There have been more and more calls on our health dollars. We have an ageing population. We have access to new treatments, new therapies and new medicines all the time, and we need to make wise decisions about how to fund those exciting new developments.

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

Minister, will there be a cost-of-capital component to activity based funding for teaching, training and research in hospitals?

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

I propose to take all of the questions at the end.

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

Minister, you have spoken about the National Health Reform Agreement. As I understand it, it is $16.4 billion worth of additional Commonwealth funding. In my electorate of Throsby in the state of New South Wales we are very keenly interested in this. If you picked up over the last week the newspapers which are circulated in any areas of New South Wales you will have seen a raging debate going on about hospital waiting lists and quite some concern about the capacity of hospitals and medicos within those hospitals to deal with a blowout in waiting lists. My question in this particular area is: how can we be seeing this increase in waiting lists at a time when the Commonwealth is actually increasing its funding to the hospital sector in states like New South Wales? Is our increase in funding going to the right places? Is it above and beyond CPI increases? What is going wrong here?

The second issue that I would like to hear from you about, Minister, concerns Medicare Locals. I understand that we have a number of Medicare Locals throughout the country who are already up and running, with a particularly successful one in the Illawarra which is well received within the community. I would like to hear from you about the importance of Medicare Locals in our overall delivery of primary health care and what that means and whether there is a threat to Medicare Locals and the benefit that they provide to the community.

Thirdly, I am also keen to hear from you, Minister, about the impact of this budget on the healthcare needs of people in my electorate. I will give you a little bit of a profile of the people in my electorate. The percentage of people in my electorate over the age of 65 is roughly 18 per cent, which is above the New South Wales average of 15 per cent and the Australian average of 14 per cent. So it is a greying electorate. Also, around 33 per cent of people in my electorate are classified as coming from low-SES backgrounds. That contrasts to the Australia-wide average of about 19 per cent. How are the measures within this budget helping to address the health needs of people from these two demographics?

Next, in relation to bulk billing, I was very pleased to see that over 92 per cent of the presentations to general practitioners in my electorate are bulk billed. This contrasts well with the national average of 82 per cent. What policies have we got in place to ensure that we can continue to see high rates of bulk billing for people who present to general practitioners in electorates like mine?

Then I have two issues regarding the Medicare Benefits Scheme. On my analysis, the average person receives around $966 per annum from the Medicare Benefits Scheme in my electorate, compared to the $780 average across Australia, and $446 per annum from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme per person compared to the $332 average per annum across Australia. What reasons can you give for the increased spending in both the MBS and the PBS for people in electorates such as mine? How are measures within this budget going to ensure that we can continue to deliver high rates of bulk billing, benefits from the Medicare Benefits Scheme and benefits from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme to people in my electorate, who quite clearly, on the aggregate figures, are relying heavily on these two important government schemes?

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

I seek some clarification on the process here, Madam Deputy Speaker. In previous years, the minister, during consideration in detail, has always made at least some attempt to answer questions at the time they were put. It was only when the minister was not readily able to provide the facts that the question would be taken on notice and detail provided later. My question to you is about how proceedings should be conducted.

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

The minister is able to take the questions and answer them at the end if he or she wishes. The process here is that we have five minutes—

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

I am seeking clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are doing consideration in detail of the budget. This is the opportunity for the opposition to ask detailed questions about the budget. Are we to understand that the minister is going to listen to this for one hour and then respond at the end of it?

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

The minister can do that.

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

That is just outrageous.

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

I am pleased to be able to make some introductory remarks about the spending on mental health and aged care in this budget. This budget continues the very significant investment in these two portfolios initiated, for mental health, in the 2011 budget and, for aged care, through the Living Longer, Living Better reforms in the 2012 budget. I am very pleased to report that the 2013 budget continues the very substantial reform direction for aged care set out in last year's budget—the most substantial reforms to our aged-care sector since the mid-1980s, when the current system was largely constructed by the Hawke government.

It is worthwhile traversing some of the major elements of those reforms—and I confirm again that they are contained in the 2013 budget. The central theme of the aged-care reforms is to expand and reform the delivery of home care. Older Australians, directly and through their organisations, have indicated time and time again that what they want from an aged-care system is support to allow them to remain living independently in their own home for as long as possible—and, if at all possible, for the remainder of their lives. This year's budget continues the direction charted last year to expand home care packages over the next four years by about two-thirds, from 60,000 to about 100,000.

The 2013 budget also confirms the direction of overhauling the current system of delivery of home care packages—the current system of community aged-care packages. Each package will have four levels, allowing people to move more seamlessly through a continuum of care as their care needs progress. For the first time, those home care packages will be consumer directed. All of the home care packages contained in this year's Aged Care Approvals Round, or ACAR, are offered only on a consumer directed care basis and all existing packages in the market will need to be converted to consumer directed care packages by 2015.

Since the last budget, the Aged Care Financing Authority has been busily establishing new guidelines for the charging of accommodation fees in residential care where a resident has the capacity to pay an accommodation charge. The first thing the financing authority did was to develop guidelines for significant refurbishment. These would qualify an accommodation provider for a very substantial increase in their accommodation supplement, from $32 per day to $52 per day, commencing on 1 July next year. Those guidelines were the subject of very close consultation with the residential care sector, and are a substantial addition to the way in which we will be able to see continuing investment in the residential care sector into the future. ACFA, the Aged Care Financing Authority, has also established—and I have published—new guidelines around accommodation charging, provided that the legislation currently before the Senate passes so that the old distinction between high-care charging and low-care charging goes into the dustbin of history.

We also know that the workforce supplement is in the process of finalisation, with guidelines have been out for consultation with the sector. We are currently working through the submissions from the sector about the final shape of those guidelines so that they will be ready to take effect on the 1 July this year. The same process has been followed in relation to dementia supplement to pay providers 10 per cent extra for the provision of care to people with a diagnosis of dementia, whether in home care or in residential care. These guidelines will also be ready for effect on 1 July, as will guidelines in relation to a supplement for veterans experiencing mental health issues. I place on record my thanks to the support given by Minister Snowdon, his office and his department in the development of those guidelines.

I am very pleased that this budget continues the National Perinatal Depression Initiative commenced by this government in 2008: extending the funding to state and territory governments; extending funding through the ATAPS system for counselling for parents, particularly mothers experiencing such depression; and continuing funding to beyondblue for the leadership role that it has taken. It also extends funding with increases of 5.3 per cent to the Mental Health Nurse Incentive Program which, people will be aware, is undergoing a substantial review at present. (Time expired)

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

I would like to hear from the minister the justification for spending $10 million over the next two years to deliver a national communications campaign to inform Australians about the benefits of Medicare and health related services. Medicare is a long-established scheme and has been running since 1984. There is strong community support for Medicare. There is strong bipartisan support for Medicare. Medicare was greatly expanded during the previous coalition government in the areas of mental health and team care arrangements. I would like to hear the minister's justification—in a budget which is an emergency budget with a massive budget deficit—for funding a national information campaign including information products and a website to provide detailed information to consumers and health professionals about the affordability and accessibility of Medicare, which has been running since 1984.

I also want to ask: what is the rationale behind spending $6½ million over the next four weeks of this campaign, and $3½ million in 2013-14? Firstly, regarding the $6½ million that is meant to be spent between now and 30 June, what sort of advertising all this money be spent on? What will $6½ million get in less than one month? How can the department possibly have $6½ million in advertising drawn up, designed, produced and advertised in the three weeks remaining before 30 June? What information products are being produced using this $10 million, and will they all be distributed by 30 June 2013?

Regarding the $3½ million, which is budgeted to be spent in the 2013-14 financial year, what date is this money due to be spent by? How much of it will be spent by 12 August? How much of it will be spent by 14 September? Is it planned for any of this $3½ million to be spent after 14 September? I would appreciate an answer from the minister.

The consideration in detail is a process we have been going through since 2008. The previous minister did not always come along, but when she did she answered the questions. Actually she sent Mark Butler, and he answered the questions on her behalf. I have not before seen a minister just sit and listen and have no answers on her own budget. So I would appreciate an answer from the minister.

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

The standing orders specify five-minute contributions. There is nothing in the standing orders that formalises the question-and-answer process. It is not question time.

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

I have proposed to take the questions in groups because otherwise we will run out of time. If I speak for five minutes after everybody asks a question, I will be speaking for half the time here. But I am very happy to answer the questions from the three people who have just spoken.

The first was the shadow minister who asked about the cost of capital in teaching and training in activity based funding. There is not a separate provision made for capital in activity based funding, because it is about activities. There is a provision made for consumables. But we have invested massively in capital for teaching and training. We have a rural clinical training schools set up. We have a fantastic new simulation laboratories that I have visited at Epworth, at UTS in Sydney and at Broken Hill. Right around Australia we have invested massively in simulation facilities for nursing and medical students and allied health professionals to train together because they will work together in the future.

After the cap on GP training places left to us by Tony Abbott, we have increased the number of training places very substantially both for doctors and for nurses. We have seen the results of that in increased employment numbers for doctors and nurses. We have 17,000 extra doctors and 26,000 extra nurses.

Just on the issues that the member for Throsby raised, hospital waiting lists in Throsby are of great concern to the member. It is inexplicable that while Commonwealth funding continues to increase the results are that a number of states are going backwards when it comes to hospital waiting lists. However, it is explicable when you look at state budgets. If you take $3 billion out of the New South Wales health budget, it is no surprise that we end up with these long waiting lists.

The member asked what Medicare Locals do and whether there is any threat to them. Medicare Locals are the organisations that are going to drive better primary health care on the ground, with local decision making, finding the gaps in local services and filling them in. I know you, Member for Throsby, have an excellent relationship with your Medicare Local that is doing this very thing. Unfortunately, the opposition have said in the past that they cannot afford the 3,000 front-line staff that work at Medicare Locals and they are going to get rid of them. So the real threat to Medicare Locals is an Abbott government.

You talk about the health needs in your electorate. Of course with an ageing electorate, as you rightly point out, the health needs are higher. The higher reliance of your constituents on the PBS and the MBS reflects the fact that you have an ageing electorate with people who depend very much on our fine Medicare system and our subsidised medicines for their good health. The Labor government has been both the instigator and the Guardian of these fine systems. You see in our policies expanded and accelerated price disclosure, a very important way of making sure that we continue to be able to list new medicines. $5 billion of new medicines have been listed since 2007. We are able to continue to invest in these terrific newly invented and newly manufactured medicines because we are paying less for older, generic medicines—billions of dollars less over time.

The member for Boothby asked about the Medicare advertising campaign. Yes, Australians love Medicare. They love it. They loved it the first time Labor introduced it. They loved it at the time the Liberal government destroyed it. They loved it when Labor had to reintroduce it.

Opposition members interjecting—

What happened to Medibank? You killed it, didn't you? We know that the plans for Medicare now in its new iteration of Medicare Locals are the same. They plan to get rid of $1.2 billion from primary health care by destroying Medicare Locals.

The member for Boothby is right in saying that there is an advertising campaign coming up about the new elements of Medicare—the GP after-hours line, the personally controlled e-health record and Medicare Locals.

I have heard the Leader of the Opposition say he does not know what Medicare Locals do; well, shame on him that he has not been out to meet his Medicare local and see the sorts of services that they are delivering on the ground—finding the gaps in primary health care and filling them at a local level with local decision-making, employing front-line workers and caring for the health of people who live in his electorate. Shame on him for not knowing what his Medicare local does. I have heard the shadow minister make similar remarks. If he does not know by now what Medicare locals do, shame on him as shadow health spokesperson.

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

Following on from the minister's remarks, I ask the minister: is the decision to consolidate the flexible funding and core funding for Medicare Locals a result of the national evaluation of Medicare Locals being conducted by the Department of Health and Ageing? Last year, on 27 November, in summing up the Health and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012, the Minister for Health and Ageing stated:

I am pleased to advise the House that a national evaluation of Medicare Locals, already planned to start early next year …

Can the minister advise where this national evaluation is currently up to? When will this evaluation be completed? When will this evaluation be publicly released? If it has been completed, why has it not been released? What aspects of the Medicare Locals program are being evaluated?

Also, the minister mentioned 3,000 front-line staff working in Medicare Locals. I ask the minister: what does she consider a staff member working on front-line services? How many hours do they have to be working in a clinical area for that to be counted as front-line services?

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

I am very pleased to be able to make some inquiries this afternoon in relation to the mental health portfolio in particular. I know that there has been tremendous work done by the ministers and their parliamentary secretaries and colleagues in this area, particularly in view of the very significant—in fact record—investment of more than $2.2 billion in mental health by this government.

I have taken particular interest in this portfolio because mental health is raised with me quite regularly in the context of the growing areas of my electorate, particularly those areas in which there is quite a youthful population. Indeed, there have been events held in my area quite recently such as Stride4Life, initiated by students of one of the local schools in my electorate. It is geared up to provide a bit more awareness of youth mental health in particular. A great deal of work has been done throughout the term of this government to focus very much on raising awareness of youth mental health issues and also then responding to those issues and providing appropriate research, funds and support to inquire further into the causes of youth mental health concerns and to provide for the best ways of responding to those concerns.

I note, particularly in my part of the world, headspace. It has been rolled out right around the country, but headspace has certainly been very well received in the south-east of Melbourne. I was very pleased to attend not so long ago, with Minister Butler, the opening of the headspace unit, which will service the needs of greater Dandenong but also provide outreach services to Casey and Cardinia in my electorate. In addition to that, it does very fine work in schools programs, providing schools with appropriate support in incidences of youth mental health concerns at those schools.

I should say, since the Minister for Health and Ageing has been reflecting on Medicare Locals, that the people at the South Eastern Melbourne Medicare Local have done an extraordinarily good job of bringing together headspace in the south-east. I have the utmost confidence in them. They do excellent work, both researching the health needs of the community in my part of the world and doing extraordinary work making the correct connections between health services providers, including mental health services providers, throughout the region—that is precisely what they were intended to do, and they are doing it.

In recent weeks, I have also had a chance to visit Mind Australia, which was recently the beneficiary of just over $600,000 from the federal government to provide assistance in the way of mental health respite services and carer support. It is an absolutely marvellous initiative, particularly in our area. I had a good opportunity to speak with them; there is a very enthusiastic group of people on the staff down there. They have recently established the office in Narre Warren, around Fountain Gate. It is precisely an area in which these services are needed. So much of what is being done throughout this portfolio is about reaching out to people who perhaps have not felt the need or the capacity to come forward with either mental health needs, broader health needs or with their families and carers to seek appropriate support. So it is marvellous to see the expansion of so many services and I know there is much more on the agenda in the context of this budget. I will certainly be seeking some particulars about that. For instance I know about arrangements in relation to the expansion of early psychosis centres and additional funding in relation to aspects of mental health research which is contemplated in some of the measures this government has focused on.

The question I would particularly like to ask is about the government's creation of Australia's first national mental health reform package, which sought to address the fact that less than half the number of people affected by poor mental health receive professional help for treatment. Are there initiatives or strategies within the reform package and funded in the budget that address the need to have a wider reach for services and specifically to encourage and facilitate access to these services by groups in our society that have traditionally been hard to reach?

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Mental Health, Homelessness and Social Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very grateful to the member for La Trobe for her excellent question. She is absolutely right to say that the government is seized by the importance of extending the reach and effectiveness of mental health services, precisely because mental illness affects one in three Australians at some point in their lifetimes. Because it represents the third-largest cause of the disease burden in Australia after cardiovascular disease and cancer, it is the single largest cause of disability and it is the largest risk factor for suicide which, of course, has tragic impact on individuals, families and communities. Yet, less than half of all Australians suffering from a mental illness actually receive any form of treatment. So we know that more needs to be done and we know that a significant part of the challenge lies in creating modes of service that not only increase capacity overall but also better serve and welcome people who have not been able to access or who have not felt comfortable accessing traditional healthcare services.

In addressing the health service gap, the government has invested substantially in the National Mental Health Reform package including in the area of E-mental health. The government's e-mental health strategy released in July last year includes our ongoing support for tele-web measures like Lifeline and Kids Helpline and the government's online mental health portal called mindhealthconnect, as well as our new mental health clinic called MindSpot. While some might believe that e-mental health is necessarily a second-best option to be used when face-to-face services are not available, in fact online support will in many cases be a preferred option for a large number of Australians.

As noted already, one of the biggest problems in the mental health space is the large number of people who never receive any care in relation to their distress or anguish. This is often because of social and/or geographic isolation and the associated stigma that people suffering with mental health conditions often face or fear. Experience has already shown, through fantastic programs funded by the government including ReachOut, and eheadspace and now MindSpot, that many Australians actually welcome the opportunity to access mental health information and support online. Indeed, the delivery of expanded telephone and internet mental healthcare services and the creation of new and innovative forms of care using communication technology, especially with the National Broadband Network, will help us reach some of the groups that presently go unheard and unhelped—mainly young people, men and people living in regional and rural and remote Australia.

Online and telephone services allow people to control their access to health care so that they get care when they need it at no cost, with no need to travel and in a way that affords them greater privacy or anonymity than traditional face-to-face services. Experience has shown that once people have accessed information and support online then they are much more likely to then be willing to access more traditional forms of care. Part of the strength of the government's new online mental health clinic, MindSpot, is that it offers a stepped care approach in which each client is carefully assessed by a clinician to ensure that they receive the right care for their individual needs.

MindSpot has funding of $14.9 million over three years to 2014-15 to deliver free online and telephone cognitive behavioural therapy to an estimated 30,000 people experiencing high-prevalence mild to moderate disorders, including anxiety and depression. Approximately one in five Australians suffer depression or anxiety each year, with only 35 per cent consulting a health professional and less than half receiving evidence based treatment. The MindSpot service is being delivered seven days a week from its headquarters at Macquarie University under the direction of Professor Nick Titov and his 25-strong team of psychologists, psychiatrists and mental health workers. It was my privilege on 3 May this year to formally launch this new and innovative online clinical service, which has been operating since December.

MindSpot is already proving its value as a high-volume, quality service for people suffering from anxiety and depression, with early statistics showing a steady increase in the number of new patients and new assessments per week and a very high level of patient satisfaction. As of the formal launch date, 2,400 people had commenced assessments through MindSpot at an average of 35 per day. Of those who access this service, 42 per cent had never previously discussed their anxiety or depression with a health professional.

The proportional use of the service by people in the various states and territories matches the distribution of the population, which shows that online and telephone services can be headquartered anywhere and still provide effective national coverage. MindSpot is an important and innovative part of the national government's— (Time expired)

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

My question is to the health minister. Minister, the budget contains a $17 million capital measure for further national medical stockpile. Can the minister confirm this large capital investment is separate to the appropriation of $20.7 million in 2013 for program 14.1? My next question is in relation to hospital cost data. Has hospital cost data been received from all jurisdictions for 2011-12? Has that been processed by the May deadline for the 2014-15 efficient price determination? Thirdly, could the minister please answer these questions in relation to the advertisements that appeared in Victoria on 23 February this year? Who was in the loop in terms of the decision-making process as to the content of those ads? Was the minister's own office, DLOs or other staff members involved in proofing the ads prior to them appearing in the Victorian newspapers? At what cost to the Commonwealth were those ads placed? And were they required to go through a departmental committee or the government's own advertising committee? Could the minister please detail the process in relation to those particular ads? As I said, for the minister's clarification, they appeared in Victorian newspapers on 23 February this year.

Also, I again draw the minister's attention to some of the detail asked by the shadow parliamentary secretary earlier in relation to the detail, and in particular the timing around the advertising in relation to Medicare—in particular, how that money will be spent in the closing weeks of this financial year. I ask about the processes around the expenditure of that money. I understand the minister's explanation as to why she wants to respond to questions en masse; however, we would ask that the minister be sincere in what she is saying. There are many questions that have been asked so far in this process that have deliberately been ignored or have not been noted and certainly have not been responded to adequately. It is unfortunate in terms of the way in which this process is expected to operate.

This process is to hold this bad government to account, to ask questions about a budget of a government that is clearly on its knees. This is a government that has made some terrible decisions in the most recent budget and the minister has been asked appropriate questions and has been shown due respect through the process. For the minister to refuse to answer those questions, as they were put by the shadow parliamentary secretary earlier, or in detail as I have asked now, is unfortunate and shows complete contempt for the process. I understand the minister is under enormous pressure, as all ministers in this government at this point of time obviously find themselves, but the fact remains that this is a process that does need to be shown respect and I ask the minister to address those issues in detail. If further clarification is required I would be happy to provide that. We have given detailed questions to the minister and we ask her to respond accordingly.

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

Minister, I rise to put on the record some of the considerable community appreciation of this federal government's investments, particularly in infrastructure. I am certainly interested in hearing about this issue more broadly but I just want to put on the record in regard to Robertson, on the Central Coast, the reality faced by the community before this Labor government began its vision for fairness and equity for Australian people.

Mr Mitchell interjecting—

The reality, as I understand it, when we came to government—

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the member for McEwen made an offensive remark and I would ask you to ask him to withdraw it.

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

Order! I did not hear the remark, but the member might withdraw it. Did you say the member for McEwen? I did not hear him. The member for McEwen will withdraw.

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

I withdraw.

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

As I understand it when the Labor government came into power with an agenda for equity and fairness, an opportunity to access health—not just in the cities but in the regions—was an imperative. The reality was that, sadly, those who live in regional and rural communities have such limited access to essential public infrastructure to be able to receive cancer treatment. We have data that reveals that the city cousins of our country Aussies are surviving cancer at a much higher rate than those who live in regional and remote communities.

All sorts of excuses can be put to a community with arguments that maybe you can attend treatment away from home. In regard to my local people, we live in a spot between Gosford, Sydney and Newcastle. The argument was continually put that if you could not afford private treatment for radiotherapy there was always the option that you could just get on a train or in a car and go to Newcastle or Sydney. Anybody who has ever lived close and personal in a relationship with somebody who is facing the challenges of cancer treatment would know that you might be able to commence such a journey with great hope and great goodwill and support, but the reality is that as the treatment continues, and as the person becomes sicker and sicker in fighting their disease and managing the challenges of the treatment itself, people simply are unable to continue their treatment. That living reality of millions of Australian families requires a structural response.

In the seat of Robertson, certainly the government has delivered a very powerful response to that community need. I was delighted to be able to open the Central Coast Cancer Centre which received an investment of $29 million from this government and $10 million committed by the state Labor government which, I am pleased to say, was honoured by the incoming Liberal government. In my local community that has transformed the lives of those people who find themselves in a situation where cancer confronts their family.

That cancer centre has been open for about six weeks and already I have spoken to four individuals. One of them—a lovely man who is a teacher with a long-standing commitment to education in our electorate and who is also significantly involved in local surf lifesaving—spoke to me at a sponsor's dinner for the local surf lifesaving group. He told me how surprised he was that, in the few weeks since I had last seen him, his wife had been diagnosed with breast cancer. Now, a piece of infrastructure that he thought was good—something that he had read in the newspaper as a distant government objective—suddenly became extremely significant to his family. With his wife, they are facing a round of radiotherapy treatment to get her well. That deep understanding of investment in infrastructure, in addition to investment in training and a capacity to respond to Australians' needs in regional and rural parts of Australia, is of great interest to me. The reality is that the Central Coast, while it is at my heart, is part of a country in which there are many other centres which need this sort of infrastructure too. I understand there may be as many as 25 cancer centre projects underway and I would be very interested in hearing from the minister about those.

This infrastructure investment in cancer centres, though, is not the only infrastructure investment being undertaken. In addition to providing those services, we need to provide those services in the right place. From my own experience, I have seen the impact of the new Medicare Local facility and organisation at Erina. It is a critical part of enabling our health professionals to work in a preventative capacity. These buildings are signature to what is, in my view, a radical shift in policy—a policy of providing health services designed to wrap around people where they live. In my view, it is the ultimate expression of Labor's view about fairness for all Australians—fairness in health, fairness in education and fairness in the opportunity to access jobs where we live. That is what the NBN will deliver. So I ask the minister to comment on the government's investment in infrastructure and how that contributes to outcomes for individuals and communities right across this country. (Time expired)

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

The opposition have already asked a number of questions of the minister. Given the minister is constraining herself to five minute answers, we would simply like answers to the questions we have already asked. There have been detailed questions around the timing of your $10 million communication plan. We would like to hear more on that. We also asked about the national evaluation of the Medicare Locals and about the issue of front-line services—previously the minister has said that 70 per cent of staff in Medicare Locals are providing front-line services; now she says it is all 3,000. The shadow minister had a number of detailed questions as well. We would appreciate answers from the minister.

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

There have been a number of questions about Medicare Locals. First, there was a question about the collapsing of several flexible funds and core funding into one, more flexible, funding pool. We have done this for the very good reason that Medicare Locals are supposed to make local decisions about local priorities and to have the flexibility to meet those demands.

An opposition member: It is not one flexible funding pool. It has all gone into core funding.

It is not all going to core funding. There are a number of flexible funds being combined with core funding. In 2013-14, core funding for the Medicare Local after-hours program, the Rural Primary Health Services program and the preventative health initiative are being consolidated into the primary healthcare initiatives through the Medicare Locals Fund, the flexible fund. What we will see is a total increase across the network in excess of $70 million. The flexible funding means that all Medicare Locals will receive increased funding. The average across Medicare locals will be a 20 per cent increase in funding.

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker Grierson: the question was about the national evaluation which the minister spoke about in November. The first question was whether the change to funding arrangements was as a result of the national evaluation.

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

It is not as a result of the national evaluation. The national evaluation is ongoing. If you were to look at the AusTender website, you would see, firstly, that it was advertised and, secondly, that it is ongoing. It is not very complicated. All you need to do is check the AusTender website and you will see that it has been advertised. It is expected to finish early next year. Consultations have already started. As part of those consultations, I expect many people associated with Medicare Locals to welcome the extra funding they are getting—on average, as I said, 20 per cent extra between this year and next. I also expect that they will express a great deal of concern about what the opposition have said on Medicare Locals—that they are just a bunch of bureaucrats—when we know that seven out of 10 of their staff provide frontline services. The member asked: 'What are frontline services?' Doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, pharmacists, Aboriginal health workers, nurses that deal with chronic issues, pain management specialists—right across the board these people are delivering frontline services. The last four-year funding from $1.3 billion to $1.45 billion is at risk when the opposition gets rid of Medicare Locals.

The member for Dickson, shadow minister Dutton, also asked about the national medical stockpile. There is no conspiracy there: we buy medicines with that $17 million. That is why it is called a national medical stockpile. We set aside medicines in the event that there is a catastrophic outbreak of something very nasty and we need to have medicines on hand to make sure that Australians are able to be treated very quickly. We need to stockpile some of those medicines because the unfortunate truth is that when something—

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! The question has been asked.

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

You asked what it was for and I am telling you what it is for: it is for replacing medicines in the national medical stockpile. The reason we need to replace those medicines is because, in the event that Australia is faced with an outbreak of disease, it is very likely that Australia will not be the first or the only country facing that same disease. As we have seen with SARS and H1N1, and more recently with H7N9, the issue is that it is not just Australia that needs these medicines quickly. There is competition around the world for medicines that can prevent outbreaks of disease or treat outbreaks of disease. When we enter that international competition at a time when there is demand around the world, the danger is that we will be last on the list. We need to stockpile medicines to make sure we are protected from outbreaks of disease. That $17 million replenishes that.

The member asked about hospital data for 2011-12. I do not know why the member is asking about that in this budget consideration. That is information that is collected by the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority. They have the information that they need to calculate the efficient price because it is based on 2010-11 data.

I am sure Victorians will be very pleased that you have raised this: Victoria has not submitted data on the most recent quarter of October-December 2012, but this does not affect the calculation of the national efficient price. The Victorian health minister and the Victoria government have been spectacularly bad at providing the data necessary. The reason is that every time they provide data it shows they are going backwards. Their waiting lists are getting longer, their emergency department waiting times are getting longer—every time they provide data it shows that despite massive increases in federal funding on every single measure the health system that the poor Victorian patients are faced with is getting worse. I will let David Davis know that you are very concerned about the fact that he is not providing his data.

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

I have a question for the minister or the parliamentary secretary as appropriate about organ donation. I feel very strongly about the issue of organ donation; I have been an organ donor, and ticked the box, ever since I got my first licence, like a lot of people. When I became aware of the organ donor register many years ago I registered myself.

I am very encouraged by a recent announcement of a two-year pilot of the live donor scheme beginning on 1 July. We have consistently debated how to increase rates of organ donation, and the need for people to discuss it with their family, but my understanding is that we are still lagging behind where Australia wants to be in this regard. So I was quite encouraged to see this pilot scheme providing a number of things, and this is six weeks paid leave at minimum wage, which I believe has just gone up to $3,733 for employers, who will pass it on to those eligible employees who become live organ donors. It predominately applies, as I understand it, to kidney donations and it can involve partial liver donations.

This is intended to reduce the waiting time for organ transplants. The focus is on kidney disease and I think that is particularly important. A little while ago, I met a young woman named Jess Sparkes, who has had a double lung transplant. She competed in the World Transplant Games. I was very touched by her story, along with that of Mr Michael Colvin, who was featured on the Four Cornersprogram on this subject. I have seen some criticisms already of this pilot program, one of them being questions about whether this is incentivising organ donation, which is of course illegal. I note that Mr Colvin, after years of needing dialysis, came out in support of the scheme and specifically said, 'It's not cash for kidneys; it's for people who have said to their friends and family, "I'd like to help but I can't keep up the mortgage payments."' There would be many personal reasons why people do not want to register to be a donor; it is very personal. But I think governments can play a role in breaking down some of the barriers and one of those includes where there is a financial disincentive or a financial barrier to do so. I can imagine no greater gift than donating an organ to a loved one and making that decision while you are alive. It must be very difficult. Where someone cannot do it for financial reasons, it must cause resentment between people and the potential donor must feel very bad themselves.

I imagine there are a lot of people in our community, including in my community, who would struggle to have enough time to do it—six weeks for recovery from surgery or to go without an income for the period. In regard to this pilot program, I would like to know whether financial concerns were identified as a major barrier to becoming a living donor. Does it apply only to full-time workers? Will it support part-time workers and people who are self-employed? When we are talking about live donors, there must be some benefits that would accrue to those with particular diseases such as kidney disease to receive an organ from a living donor as opposed to a deceased donor. Finally, what are the current rates of live organ donation and are we on target so that we might one day actually have enough organs from deceased donors?

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too saw that Four Corners report on Mark Colvin. I want to praise him for his courage and the many other people who are going through a similar experience. It is a big challenge and I have seen it personally. Twenty years ago, my mother-in-law, Corinne Briese, was the recipient of a liver transplant. The benefit to her and to my family was immense: she saw her grandchildren raised and her great-grandchildren born as a result of organ donation.

I thank the member for Greenway for her question. We have an ongoing commitment of course to sustain continuous improvement in organ and tissue donations. This government have done what no other government has done in the past. Since the establishment of the organ and tissue authority back in January 2009, we have seen some significant increases in donation and transplantation rates. We are continuing to work in this area. It is important to note that in this budget we put aside $2.6 million for a new initiative, the living donor paid leave scheme. I saw the headlines on that Sunday morning: 'Cash for kidney'. It was disingenuous and dishonest to say that. It is not true. We consulted widely with stakeholders in relation to this issue and I have personally spoken to a number of interested parties, particularly on the Sunday when the Minister for Health and I made the announcement. The joy and enthusiasm for this particular initiative cannot be underestimated. Tears were flowing and, in a number of cases, I could hear them yelling for joy at the other end of the phone.

We looked at overseas approaches, as you mentioned. We looked at what they are doing there. The substance of the scheme, which will begin on 1 July, is that it will provide up to six weeks paid leave at the minimum wage, which is currently $622.20 a week. The duration of the initiative is two years and we will undertake an evaluation of that initiative after that time. As you correctly said, member for Greenway, about 99 per cent of the donations in Australia involve the donation of a kidney. This is an incredibly generous and amazing sacrifice that people are prepared to make—to give a partial liver or a kidney. Most people cannot afford six weeks off. They have to pay their mortgage and meet their household expenses, so this has been an obstacle for them. We have provided six weeks pre-surgery evaluation and post-surgery convalescence. As you said, it provides the opportunity for people to take time off work. The scheme is for part-time and full-time workers and self-employed workers, as you mentioned before. The unemployed, of course, can get sickness benefits and other types of benefits.

It is not a matter of providing an incentive for people to do this; it is a matter of recognising the financial barriers that someone may face when they want to give generously to a loved one, a family friend, a spouse or a relative. The government does not believe—and I do not believe this is accepted by the opposition either—that it is appropriate to sell organs to make money. In Australia the waiting time for a kidney transplant from a deceased donor is about three to four years. As of 3 December 2012, 1,080 Australians were officially listed as waiting for a kidney transplant. Living organ donation numbers have steadily decreased, from a high of 356 donors in 2008 to 241 in 2012. The average between 2006 and 2011 was 290 living organ donors each year. We want to arrest that problem.

More than 30,000 Australians have received organ and tissue transplants in Australia since the first kidney transplant was performed in 1965. We have one of the highest success rates for organ transplantation in the world, with survival rates exceeding 90 per cent in the first year. This is a very generous thing for someone to do, but it means that the quality of someone's life and their employment opportunities can be enhanced. The reality is that it saves up to $73,000 a year in terms of dialysis for someone who is still getting that sort of treatment for their kidney disease. This is a great initiative. This is something that we think will arrest the decline. I commend the minister and all the stakeholders who have been pushing this initiative for such a long time.

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

I would like to ask a couple of questions again. Firstly, I ask about the ad which appeared in Victorian newspapers on 23 February. We would simply like to know who approved those ads. Was the minister or her staff consulted about the ads? Did the minister or her staff see a proof of the ads before they were placed? Did those ads go through the departmental process or through the government advertising committee? And there is the question which the opposition is now asking for the third time: we would like some more detail about the communications campaign—$10 million over the next two years to fund a national information campaign and information products to inform Australians about the benefits of Medicare. Specifically, we would like to know what information products are being produced using this $10 million. What date is this money due to be spent by?

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

I would like to take this opportunity to ask some questions of the Minister for Health, especially in relation to current investments in expanding two particular cancer screening programs. The first one is the bowel cancer screening program and the second is the expansion of breast cancer and cervical cancer screening to women in the 70- to 74-year-old group.

The reason I ask this is that you yourself, Deputy Speaker, just a little while ago talked about the challenges faced by people in regional areas in relation to access to treatment but also to screening. In my case, I have an electorate that has a very high level of people linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds. We as governments over the years have made commendable efforts to fund cancer awareness and prevention programs, but if language and culture are barriers mitigating against the full appreciation and benefit of those programs then we have a problem.

Recently I was visited by the BreastScreen Victoria people who, coincidentally, have an office right next door to my own in Broadmeadows. They showed me figures that indicated a dramatic drop in the number of women who were availing themselves of mammography in age groups and ethnic backgrounds that I at least was of the impression we had made significant advances in. As a member here, I have spent many years advocating for screening in various breast cancer and bowel cancer programs. As a result of that meeting, next week my office is hosting a morning tea which we have quite aptly described as a mother-daughter awareness morning tea, the reason being that many women in the elder category of 60 and over are not actually having mammograms. On the other side of that, you have women younger than 30 and 40 who are also not having mammograms. They are areas that we have been targeting. It is very important to remind women in those age groups that it is just as important for them to have mammograms. I am having this morning tea next week in the hope of encouraging mother-daughter couples, with the dual purpose of the mother looking out for the welfare of the daughter and the daughter looking out for the welfare of the mother—and this will hopefully spread to nieces and granddaughters. We are doing it in this particular way because one of the problems with women generally, especially those from non-English-speaking backgrounds, is a fear of what the mammogram might reveal and so they avoid having potentially life-saving screenings. I am looking forward to the minister speaking about the government's decision to increase the program for breast cancer screening to women in the 70 to 74 group.

Last year I was also very pleased that the government funded a bowel screening program. I did have the opportunity to ask the minister questions about this last year, but this year I am particularly also pleased that we are increasing the funding to that bowel screening program. As a result of some of the work I did last year on bowel cancer screening my office has had an incredible response from the community. We took the step of translating the material from the bowel cancer screening kit into five different languages. I spoke about regions being a barrier. Languages are also a barrier. On the back of those successful translations into various languages of this very important screening program, I have had an incredible response and support from my electorate. So, Minister, I would like you to, please, reflect on your views, on behalf of the government, on our investments in these cancer prevention, detection and treatment programs and how they are in fact improving the lives of Australians, especially those Australians who have been touched by cancer.

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

I will start with the questions from the member for Boothby. He was asking about the Victorian advertising campaign. That is not actually in this budget, so he will need to find another opportunity to ask about that. The question seems to be: why would you have a Medicare campaign when people know about Medicare? As I said earlier to the member for Boothby, there are a range of new services that are being provided by Medicare that people need to know about. They are excellent new services. The expanded after-hours GP helpline is such a help, particularly to parents in the middle of the night.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. They were two very simple questions, about information products and the date the campaign will finish—that is all we asked.

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

You have made your point of order. I call the minister.

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

There is a range of information materials. They will tell people that the expanded after hours GP hotline means that, instead of leaving home in the middle of the night with a sick baby, when they are not sure whether it can wait till morning a worried parent can call the GP information hotline. It means that, for a frail older person who finds it hard to get to the doctor and wants a little advice, instead of leaving home in the middle of the night—

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order, on relevance. We want some detail about the information products and the date the communication campaign will conclude—very simple questions.

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

Thank you, Member for Boothby. I call the minister.

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

So a frail older person who is sick and worried in the middle of the night and does not really want to go and wait six hours in the emergency department of the local hospital can call the GP helpline. They will know what the number is because they will have that information before them.

The other elements of this campaign will remind people that they can now get a personally controlled e-health record. They can take their health information anywhere with them, from doctor to doctor. If they change doctors, see a specialist or are travelling, they will be able to very easily access the information in their personally controlled e-health record. We already have close to one-quarter of a million people signed up for their personally controlled e-health records, but we know the people who would benefit most are people who see a number of doctors, who travel frequently or who see new doctors all the time, and of course young families with young children. That is why on the weekend we launched the baby BlueBook, the e-health app that connects children's information with their personally controlled e-health record.

The other element is letting people know about Medicare Locals. They are 61 local health organisations designed and launched by Labor across the country to ensure that local decisions about primary health care are made at a community level, gaps are identified at a local level and solutions are found at a local level to fill those gaps.

The member for Calwell asked about cancer care. I pay tribute to her long association with the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program in particular. I know she has an interest in cancer issues more generally, but the member for Calwell has been extraordinarily diligent in talking to her community, a very diverse community with a very large range of language groups, about the importance of bowel cancer screening. I am very pleased that we increased funding to the Bowel Cancer Screening Program this year as part of our $226 million cancer package in the budget. We also, of course, increased funding to breast cancer, both screening and care—for screening by expanding the target age range up to 74 years—with extra support for the McGrath Foundation breast care nurses.

In fact, the cancer package altogether has a range of things that I know the member for Calwell will be very interested in, including continuing funding for around 280 critically ill patients to be able to use the bone marrow transplant program in 2013-14 and new chemotherapy drugs. We are listing new drugs all the time—in fact, we have listed 32 new chemotherapy drugs for 15 different cancers since 2007 and we have put $30 million into this budget to make sure that patients continue to have access to those chemotherapy drugs. We are supporting CanTeen, a fantastic organisation that supports young people with cancer. It is hard enough being a teenager, but being a teenager and finding out you have leukaemia or some other type of cancer is extraordinarily difficult. CanTeen does great work and we are very pleased to support it.

I mentioned the McGrath Foundation earlier. Our increased funding will expand the number of funded nurses from 44 to 57. They are the ones that the government funds; obviously, the McGrath Foundation also do a fine job of fundraising themselves to support extra McGrath breast care nurses. We have $18½ million for the Australian Prostate Cancer Research Centre's program, including new funding of $5.5 million for the Australian Prostate Cancer Research Centre. When I say new I mean first-time funded; the other two centres had initial funding, their funding was coming to an end and we have refunded those two centres and funded an additional centre at the Kinghorn Cancer Centre in Sydney. We are continuing funding at the centre at Epworth Hospital in Melbourne and the Princess Alexandra Hospital in Brisbane.

There is also around $6 million—just under; $5.9 million—for improving treatment and outcomes for patients with lung cancer. Lung cancer is a very complex cancer to treat. It has, unfortunately, low survival rates. When measured against other cancers, we have rates that are too high in Australia. There is also $36½ million to continue the excellent work of the Victorian Cytology Service on cervical cancers and the research that goes with that.

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

I have some questions for the Minister for Indigenous Health. I will be covering renal issues, dental issues and the Mason review, but first of all I want to focus on the budget announcement in particular: the $777 million that has been announced as a three-year commitment by the federal government. Firstly, Minister, breaking down that commitment into the three financial years would be very helpful. Secondly, was there any discussion with state governments on your contribution prior to the budget announcement and, if so, which states and what was the nature of that correspondence? Thirdly, what is the intended contribution by state governments to match your $777 million commitment? Do you have an implementation plan in place? Will it be similar to previous implementation plans, or is it going to diverge somewhat from the previous implementation plan for the NPA?

More specifically then to renal disease and the recent breakdown in negotiations with the Territory government over chronic renal disease funding. Minister, could I ask for your assessment of the state of play as of today? We understand that late last week there was some communication between your office and stakeholders indicating that the remaining $10 million that had been set aside for a post Alan Cass solution to chronic renal disease was in limbo. I appreciate that they have been difficult negotiations, but what exactly has happened to that $10 million? Is it still on the table? And will there be a coordinated and carefully planned announcement? Or are we at risk of seeing this money either dribbled out, as election commitments around Central Australia, or, worse, removed from dental care or from Indigenous health altogether and back to consolidated revenue? I know you would agree that this would be an adverse outcome.

I wanted to ask specifically about the post-CDDS environment. The CDDS was cruelly and viciously cut off in November last year, leaving the sickest adults in particular vulnerable, and many Indigenous Australians have now become utterly reliant on what was not looking after them before—that is, state dental services. That is another debate. But, specifically, Minister, have you made an assessment of the degree of access and availability to dental care for Indigenous Australians in 2013 and since the termination of the CDDS? In particular, have you looked at the states that have the lowest per capita dental investment—those eastern seaboard states in particular—and have you looked specifically at AMSs around the country? And those that do have dental agreements, are they actually, year on year and month on month, still treating as many Indigenous Australians with chronic and complex dental disease as they were this time last year? That would be a fair assessment. Has the number of people receiving treatment fallen away and, if so, do you have a view on that?

I particularly draw your attention to large provincial cities up the eastern seaboard that have large AMSs that provide dental care, but are no longer able to access the CDDS, which effectively cuts out 90 per cent of Australia's 12,000 dentists from being able to provide any service at all to an Indigenous Australian. Can you help me with the commitment of state hospital funding for dental? How will that work in a practical way: if you are an Indigenous Australian presenting to an AMS and you are told that there is no longer a CDDS arrangement, does this entail a trip to the public hospital? Does this entail being put onto a long waiting list—often 2½ years or longer? Is there a process where state public hospitals are now forced to pick through a waiting list trying to identify the Indigenous Australians? And are we reaching a point where vouchers, for instance, are being provided and then these Indigenous Australians have to then travel back to the dental service and have a second go at turning up for treatment?

If vouchers are being provided, just how large are those vouchers—$300 or $3,000? Or do we have this invidious situation where Indigenous Australians have to turn up for a second voucher when the first one runs out? These are very practical issues facing Indigenous families who are hoping for timely dental treatment.

Lastly, I have two small matters. Firstly, there is a service by the name of Murri Medical, which exists in Caboolture. It is my understanding that they are doing very promising work, including doing 68 per cent of all of the Indigenous 715 items for their region. That is quite a considerable achievement for a service that only began a couple of years ago. Minister, have you visited Murri Medical, particularly in Caboolture, and seen their service? If not, have you ever been invited to? You might be able to check your records and see if you have received an invitation to visit Murri Medical that perhaps has not been taken up. Secondly, as the Jenny Mason review tells us, do you finally concede that the rural classification scheme of your government is flawed? (Time expired)

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

I also wish to ask the Minister for Indigenous Health a question and mine is more general than the one that just preceded. I do think it important that the minister outline to us how the current budget continues to give our government's commitment to closing the gap in life expectancy between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and non-Indigenous Australians. I ask this question in a week where yet another wonderful Indigenous leader has been lost to the Aboriginal community and to the people of Australia, far too soon.

I ask it also as the member for Newcastle. I use our Medicare Local statistics, a wonderful baseline document prepared when Medicare Locals were set up. It shows the number of Indigenous people in each electorate and in each Medicare Local area. In my region, the areas of Lake Macquarie and Newcastle have very high Indigenous population proportions. There are 7½ per cent in Lake Macquarie and 6.8 per cent in Newcastle. Interestingly, their estimates show that 60 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders access mainstream health care. In my electorate, the Newcastle and Hunter Medicare Local has been particularly active in informing general practitioners, GPs, how they should be responding and has been assisting them to respond to the needs of Indigenous people in my electorate.

Interestingly, I also come from the perspective of being in the electorate where our local university trains about 75 per cent of all Indigenous GPs. We are absolutely blessed to have Professor Kelvin Kong, the first Indigenous surgeon in Australia and the first Aboriginal Fellow of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, who specialises in head-and-neck surgery and ear-nose-and-throat surgery, practising once more in his home region. It is a great privilege to have him there.

I have seen that wonderful side of Indigenous success and the commitment by Indigenous people to closing that gap and being involved in delivering those services. As part of the ATSIA committee of this parliament I have also visited many remote communities and listened to remote communities tell of their health needs and the need for their people to have access to services. It is of great distress to see people with systemic disease and systemic problems, but it is wonderful to see Indigenous communities embracing the closing-the-gap initiatives as their own initiatives and their path for the future—for sustaining their future and the future of their people.

In those remote communities it was very heartening to see young Indigenous people say to us, often in their own language: 'We want to be here on the ground. We want to be the medical-service deliverers here.' It is wonderful to see them getting the training opportunities and having those aspirations. I must say that each community also raised with us the problems of alcohol abuse and the controls that have been seen by many Indigenous communities, particularly women, as absolutely vital for sustaining their health and safety.

I would ask the Minister for Indigenous Health to outline those areas of success in closing the gap and the challenges that exist in closing that gap successfully. How is that happening, not just in remote communities but also in urban communities like mine in Newcastle?

I was unable to be there on Friday, when the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing opened our headspace, another service that is widely accessed by young Indigenous people in my electorate. While he was there he also highlighted the youth service in Newcastle, which has been very active in engaging with Indigenous youth and bringing to their attention the availability of services such as the headspace centre in Newcastle, which Minister Butler opened on Friday.

Finally, I ask the Minister for Indigenous Health, to outline, please, how our budget assists the continuation of the Gillard Labor government's commitment to closing the gap in life expectancy.

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

I thank both the opposition and the member for Newcastle for the questions. I am aware of the time. I will very quickly give a brief summary of what we are doing and allow Tanya, if you do not mind, to refer to the dental question.

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

The Minister for Health.

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

She is also Tanya. We have done a great deal, as you rightly pointed out, in terms of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health, and we are very proud of what we have done. But, as you also alluded to, there is still a lot more to be done. I think that is a shared view across the parliament.

We have made huge strides over recent years as a result of the commitment of both former health ministers and former prime ministers—Minister Roxon and Minister Plibersek, Prime Minister Rudd and Prime Minister Gillard—to support us in our ambition to close the gap in health outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

We have done that in partnership, in part, with Aboriginal community controlled health organisations as well as private sector practitioners and hospital services, but also, at least up until now, in partnership with state and territory governments. Previously, as you would know, through the COAG process there was commitment of $1.6 billion, and $805,000 of that came from the Commonwealth. That money expires at the end of this year. You asked a question about the $777 million over three years. That is an ongoing measure as part of our ongoing commitment. I do not have the annual break-up of that fund for you, but in total it is actually quite a deal more than $777 million, because it is for the three years to June 2016, and when the flow-on from MBS and PBS are taken into account the Commonwealth contribution will be $992 million over three years. That is a significant increase over what we have done previously.

The current NPA is at $201 million a year; the new NPA will be over $330 million a year. That is a dramatic increase in Commonwealth commitment to the NPA process. To date we have only had the Victorian government respond to our invitation to sign the new NPA. We have asked each state and territory government to respond positively. We are in negotiation with all but Western Australia, who have refused to talk to us, effectively saying that they are not prepared to talk about a new NPA around closing the gap. That is a shame, and it will mean that people in Western Australia will have fewer resources than they might otherwise have for the purposes of Aboriginal health in that jurisdiction.

You asked me about renal disease. If you do not mind I will respond to this, because it is a very important question. You asked about the commitment of money. The money is committed. It will not be going back to anywhere. It is there for the next financial year. We are intent on making sure that we expend that money to improve primary health outcomes for people with renal disease.

Unfortunately, we have had no success in working with the Northern Territory government. We offered them the resources to build accommodation for renal patients, which is very much overdue and required, in Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. Our requirement from them was the ongoing recurrent funding, which we estimated to be less than half a million dollars a year. We were proposing to spend $13 million. They said, instead, 'We don't want the money.' They have done this, by the way, in a number of other areas, including with the Health and Hospitals Fund for accommodation in Katherine and Gove. Now, of course, they are also trying to garnish or sequester—whatever word you want to use—Health and Hospitals Fund investment of around $18 million into the Royal Darwin Hospital for patient accommodation. They now want to use that as a penal settlement.

Frankly, it is not good enough, and I would say to the opposition: if you are in discussions with the Northern Territory government, you might say to them, 'This is not an appropriate way to behave, and you ought to do yourself and your community a favour and make sure you provide reasonable accommodation for all those patients travelling to Alice Springs, Darwin, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Gove who require care, and make sure you do it now, because what we're seeing as a direct result is people dying.' We are committed to assisting and working with the South Australian, Western Australian and Northern Territory governments on this issue of renal care, but it requires cooperation. (Time expired)

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

I have a question for the Minister for Health, picking up on the dental question that I asked before. Has the minister looked at the impact of the closure of the CDDS on Indigenous Australians who are presenting to AMSs? The second part is about the Mason review. Does she concede that the ASGC system is flawed? Why was this the only recommendation picked up out of the recommendation review? On the $5.6 billion in the press release that came out post Mason, is that all for regional training or is that your entire health-related training budget, not necessarily related to regional training?

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

I am happy to answer, but I am not sure what time we need to finish here.

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

We will be rising at 1.45.

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

In relation to dental services, we have put $4.6 billion over two budgets into dental services. The initial $515.3 million included around $345 million for a waiting list blitz. That is already treating patients right around Australia. People who have been on waiting lists for years are now getting their teeth seen because they are able to participate in this waiting list blitz—$345.9 million. It took some time for some of the states and territories to sign up. I was disappointed in how hard it is sometimes to give states money. But they now have all accepted the money and are treating patients, taking them off the waiting lists and getting their waiting lists to such low levels that they are able to recall people for preventive checks as well. The benefit of this approach over the CDDS is that it can treat people that do not have a chronic disease. We know that there are a lot of people who have terrible teeth but did not have a chronic disease and missed out on the CDDS. We also know that the CDDS was a widely rorted scheme. Unfortunately, it was designed so poorly that there is no other way of doing it but to close the scheme down. It was not salvageable.

As to whether Aboriginal medical services are making use of the new scheme, they absolutely should be. They should be in very close contact with their state and territory governments, which are the managers of the public dental systems in each state and territory. Some Aboriginal medical services have dental chairs in the service. They should be talking to their state or territory government about continued funding from this Commonwealth funding boost going straight to those dental chairs in the AMSs. Where the AMS does not have a chair—where it has an arrangement with another dental service—again the existing relationships that those Aboriginal medical services have with their patients should be a very good way to make sure that the people who need good dental care are getting it through this boost to funding.

I also have to mention the $2.7 billion that goes into Grow Up Smiling. I am sure that the member for Bowman, like me, has travelled to a number of Indigenous communities where you see kids with no teeth, or very bad teeth. Right across our community we are seeing rates of dental caries increasing rather than decreasing since the nineties in particular. Some of it is related to diet. Some of it is—

An honourable member: State governments stopping fluoride in the water.

State governments stopping fluoride in water certainly will not help. But those children for the most part were not eligible for Grow Up Smiling because they did not have other ill health effects in their bodies. So for Grow Up Smiling there is $2.7 billion that will make it as easy for 3.4 million children to see a dentist as it is now is to see a doctor. This will mean that they get good oral health today, but that good oral health today lasts them a lifetime. It is pretty hard to have poor teeth as a kid and grow up to have good teeth. It does not happen. So, by investing early in children and making sure that they start life with good oral health, we make sure that they can grow into adults that have good oral health.

The member for Bowman also asked about the Mason review and recommendations that have been taken up. The Mason review has made a number of recommendations, and there are a number that I will consider in greater detail. But there were two that I accepted immediately because all of the information I had from other sources—not just the Mason review—told me that they were sensible recommendations. (Time expired)

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Sitting suspended fr om 13:45 to 15:48

Education, Employment and Workplace Relations

Proposed expenditure, $4,202,808,000

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

I do have a number of questions that I want to put to the minister in this consideration in detail of the Appropriations Bill with respect to education. In last year's midyear economic and fiscal outlook, MYEFO, indexation of 5.6 per cent was projected for the years 2013-14 to 2015-16. I refer the minister to Budget Paper No. 2 2013-14, page 120, which suggests that the government intends to index school funding at 4.7 per cent from 2014 onwards. The first question is: does the 4.7 per cent growth funding include enrolment growth? Secondly, what is the difference in dollar terms between 5.6 and 4.7 in indexation for each of the years from 2013-14 to 2016-17? I also refer the minister to advice provided by the Department of Finance and Deregulation last week in Senate estimates hearings, which confirmed that the current method of indexation, the AGSRC, goes up and down each year and that the mid-year economic and fiscal outlook indexation of 5.6 per cent was correct at the time of publication.

There is a specific paragraph in Budget Paper No. 2 that suggests:

Under the former approach of growing these allocations in line with the AGSRC, schools funding growth could have fallen below these levels. Had the AGSRC fallen to three per cent per annum (as suggested by current State estimates, on average) then the total additional investment in schools under the National Plan for School Improvement would equate to approximately $16.2 billion over six years.

Firstly, was only one year of state estimates used to project three per cent indexation across six years in making this assumption? Secondly, why wasn't the 10-year rolling average used as per previous budget estimates, given the Department of Finance confirmed that the 10-year rolling average projections contained in MYEFO were correct at the time of publication? Thirdly, was it the department that put in this paragraph in Budget Paper No. 2, page 120, or the minister's office? Did the state estimates used to project AGSRC in the budget include the additional funding your government is asking the states to contribute under the National Plan for School Improvement? If the state estimates did not include the amount of funding the states are being asked to contribute under the National Plan for School Improvement, why not?

In that time I have remaining I will ask a number of other questions. The minister might want to take them on notice and respond, as some ministers do, or he may choose to respond to them today if he can. I refer the minister to the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio budget statements on page 50, Special appropriations under the Schools Assistance Act 2008. I also refer him to the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio budget statements on page 50, Special appropriations under the Australian Education Act 2013. Firstly, why is there more than $1 billion less forecast in recurrent funding for non-government schools over the forward estimates when comparing the portfolio budget statements of last year to this year? Secondly, will the following targeted programs for non-government schools be discontinued at the end of the year? The Indigenous Supplementary Assistance, Indigenous Funding Guarantee, Country Areas Program, School Languages Program, English as a Second Language, Literacy and Numeracy in Special Learning Needs, and Literacy, Numeracy and Special Learning Needs (Students with a Disability). How much are targeted programs worth to the non-government sector each year? With respect to the total funding for non-government schools contained within the forecasts from the portfolio budget statements at page 50, what is: firstly, the value of indexation supplementation for each year across the forward estimates in dollar terms? Secondly, the value of recurrent funding for each year across the forward estimates for Catholic schools, by state and territory? Thirdly, the value of recurrent funding for each year across the forward estimates for independent schools by state and territory?

As I have another minute, I will ask further questions. An opinion editorial by Stephen Anthony of Macroeconomics Pty Limited in the Australian Financial Review of 21 May noted a number of things. I refer the minister to the article and ask the following questions. How much of the $2.8 billion budgeted for the National Plan for School Improvement is unrebadged new money? Is the reward for school improvement programs being rebadged as suggested by Mr Anthony? Which other national partnerships are being redirected into the National Plan for School Improvement? Is it the case that the government is rebadging its own school funding programs? I would like to be able to ask further questions. Unfortunately, because of the lateness of the start of this consideration in detail, I will not be able to do that. I would appreciate it if the minister tried to answer those questions, and I am sure if he can he will. My colleagues, including the member for Farrer, the member for Higgins and others, will take up the baton and ask questions about their portfolios.

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

I welcome the opportunity to respond to some of the false claims and other questions put to me by the shadow minister. In relation to the way in which we have committed ourselves to a national plan for school improvement based on indexation that the Commonwealth will apply of 4.7 per cent and seeking to secure three per cent in indexation as a commitment from states, the fact is that the indexation that we are committing for the future and the decisions that we have made are based on current state budget decisions and estimates. They apply the existing method for calculating indexation, and it shows very clearly that over the coming years indexation will fall to around three per cent. This means less money from the Commonwealth for all schools. That is the basic fact here that the shadow minister continues to ignore.

On a range of other questions that the shadow minister has put to me, I am happy to provide some additional detail for his edification. I refer him to my press release, titled Pyne letter fails the fact test. I am sure he had an opportunity to consider that release at the time that it was released, which was late May—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Yes, you should have a read of it and, on that basis, be well informed about the National Plan for School Improvement. The fact is that the considerable commitment in the budget to education was a continuation of what has been one of the most significant and important reform areas for this Labor government: policy and investment. There is total spending in all three portfolio areas at around $20.7 billion, and an overall spending outlined in the forward estimates for the next four years for schools of some $64 billion, with $25.1 billion for early childhood and $275.9 million for youth. Overall spending for the National Plan for School Improvement is $9.8 billion over six financial years. This is consistent with the Prime Minister's offer to the states for a two-for-one effective investment in our schools, realising some $14.5 billion for Australian schools to see a fairer funding model in place from 2014.

The effect of the coalition's position both on indexation and on school investment broadly would be to see a lessening in school investment over time to the tune of $16.2 billion, taking into account the additional investments that I have identified. That, regrettably, is the situation that the shadow minister finds himself in: no commitment on his side to increase investment in education at all, and us on the other hand with a plan for school improvement which has been budgeted for and for which I am pleased to say legislation is in the House, and those amendments will likewise be in the House.

I refer a little bit further to the questions put to me by the shadow minister. I am not familiar with the article by Mr Anthony that he referred to. What I say is that the investment contained in the budget which we committed ourselves to will secure a funding future for schools right around Australia. Now, all that remains to happen is for state governments—as the New South Wales state government has wisely determined to do—to sign on for the National Plan for School Improvement. I do not think there is any doubt at all that when you look at the range of investments, the quantum of investment that we have made and the significant reforms in education—some of which I will refer to later on if I get the opportunity—we can see that this budget continued that outstanding record of both investment and policy reform.

Finally, to state premiers and state treasurers: our commitment is in our budget. You have that opportunity in the budgets you are bringing down now to make a similar commitment. If you do that you will put in place the necessary resources to secure the needs in education that students across your states face.

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

I am pleased to be able to make a few remarks to and inquiries of the minister this afternoon, particularly in relation to the National Plan for School Improvement and related budget measures. At the beginning of my comments and my questions this afternoon, may I say it is a great pleasure to see opposition members in the chamber. We waited for a considerable period, I recall, in last year's consideration in detail but, alas, failed to see opposition members attend. It is excellent to see them here this afternoon, and I look forward to hearing their questions on this important matter of education and the National Plan for School Improvement. These are matters which I know will be to be considerable benefit of schools in my electorate. Needless to say, that is not on my say-so: it is on the say-so of the schools themselves.

I have had the opportunity to visit so very many of my schools during the last three years, across La Trobe and across all sectors, and in recent months I have had cause to hear from those schools—indeed, as recently as last week in this place, when principals of schools within my electorate and right across the region came to the parliament and heard from the education minister and the shadow minister about what essentially is being offered in relation to school education in the context of the current budget and the forthcoming election. I heard from local schools in my area that they saw there was a great deal of benefit to be derived by them and their respective schools from the proposals put forward by us in the National Plan for School Improvement. So I certainly commend the minister for his mammoth endeavours in this regard over quite a long period of time, building on the review which we commissioned and building on the very significant investments which have been to the benefit of all schools around the country. That is as a result of the determination of this government, from day one of its term, to improve the lot of schoolchildren across all sectors and, accordingly, lift educational standards in the long term and improve the education and employment prospects of students.

I will refer to a few of the schools in my electorate that have been the beneficiaries of programs such as the national partnership on literacy and numeracy. I can advise members that St Michael's School in Berwick, Boronia Heights College in Boronia, Emerald Secondary College in Emerald, Kambrya College in Berwick, Upwey South Primary School and Belgrave Heights Christian School have all been beneficiaries under the national plan for literacy and numeracy. Schools like Kambrya College have made it very clear to me that they benefited greatly, and their students benefited greatly, and they were incredibly grateful for the Commonwealth investment there.

Regrettably, so many of these things the Commonwealth commits to and make significant strides in are vetoed by state governments. It has been true of the Baillieu government and it is true now of the Napthine government. It is the same old story. We put in significant amounts of funding and resources, we do the detailed work and then state governments scrap or cut things like the EMA in Victoria, the School Start Bonus, VET and VCAL funding, and funding for TAFE colleges—all things that are to the very great detriment of schools and to the very great detriment of students and their career paths in education.

I was out at another school in my electorate not terribly long ago, Selby Primary School. It has an excellent principal who has relatively recently joined the school and he is doing extraordinary things. I would be confident that he and his school community would make brilliant use of the additional resources that would flow from the National Plan for School Improvement. It disturbs me greatly that there has been such resistance from the Victorian government to even the prospect of engaging on the National Plan for School Improvement, and I dearly wish that they would follow the lead of some of their colleagues a little bit further north—in New South Wales—in having an open mind about this.

With that in mind, Minister Garrett, I would specifically like to ask you as someone who has been engaged in very detailed negotiations around the country on these issues what you would expect to happen to Victorian schools, such as those in my electorate, if the Napthine government continued to resist the National Plan for School Improvement?

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

I thank the member for La Trobe for her question and I do acknowledge her considerable and strong representation of the schools in her electorate, both government and non-government. I have appreciated the opportunity to visit the member's electorate on a number of occasions and see first-hand the kind of support that schools in her electorate have already received as a consequence of this Labor government's investment in La Trobe schools. I can see the Hillcrest Equine Trade Training Centre and the significant funding of $1.5 million received to enable those trade-training facilities to be delivered. I can see significant investment in schools in the National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program at schools like St Joseph's College, Gembrook Primary School, St Francis Xavier College, Hillcrest Christian College, Nossal High School and many, many others.

I can see the benefits of the investment in empowering local schools in national partnerships that have resulted in students in the schools in the members' electorates having by far a greater opportunity than they would have had previously for good, assisted, focused and targeted learning and support in the school setting.

It is important, when we consider the budget in detail, to reflect on the fact that the total spending in our areas of the budget is around $14.4 billion for schools, $6 billion for early childhood education and care and $200 million for youths. Let us just compare them with the last Howard budget, for a second or two. Even in schools, nearly twice as much investment has been delivered by this government over periods of the budget. We had $14.4 billion in schools compared with around $8½ billion in the last Howard government budget, with the commitment to a national plan for school improvement and delivery of additional resources to students in schools around Australia, with the opportunity for improved learning outcomes as a result.

The member asked me what the impact and effect would be of the Victorian government not choosing to support and join with us in a national plan for school improvement. The answer to that question is very straight forward. Under the current—broken—funding model, over the next six years Victorian schools will lose a total of around $3 billion from government schools and around $1.2 billion from non-government schools. These are not trifling sums. This is an extraordinary denigration of duty, of care, on the part of the Victorian Minister for Education and the Premier if they do not take this opportunity for additional investment. Failing to do that will see schools worse off. That is an average of around $1.7 million per school and around $3,700 per student in the non-government sector, and nearly $2 million per school and around $5,500 per student in the government sector. That includes the electorate of the member for La Trobe.

It is really time for Premier Napthine to determine that he will act in the interests of students in Victoria and Victorian schools and eschew some of the politics we have seen over the last couple of weeks. Let us look at what Premier O'Farrell did in New South Wales. It is a coalition state, with a Liberal Premier and a National party education minister. They had every opportunity to consider the interests of students in their schools, to deliver an additional investment of some $5 billion. And they took it—as did the ACT, which did not necessarily get similarly large amounts coming through its school system but nevertheless recognised the merits not only of additional investment but also of a nation plan for school improvement.

It goes without saying that teachers aids, homework classes, literacy coaches, specialised teachers to help with the curriculum and additional investment in software programs to assist teachers working with kids who have a disability—the range of supports that can be provided with an investment are considerable, including in the member's electorate, and the Victorian Premier should join.

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

(8 I welcome the opportunity to address some questions to the minister for early childhood, who has just been on his feet. These questions specifically concern the $300 million commitment to additional wages for those working in the childcare sector, the Early Years Quality Fund and the associated pay unit within the Fair Work Commission.

I appreciate that the minister and his department are not responsible for the information that is on the Big Steps website; nevertheless, given the amount of innuendo, rumour and misinformation that is circulating amongst a sector that contains very vulnerable workers, I would like the minister to take this opportunity to respond to some of the statements and information that is provided by the Big Steps campaign, which was initiated by the union United Voice.

In particular, I would like the minister to comment on answer b of question 4 of the frequently asked questions on the Big Steps website. It mentions that, in order for a centre to receive funding, it may show that in the membership of its workforce there are members of United Voice, and that is 'because United Voice is an organisation that has campaigned for and supported the national quality framework'. While we know that United Voice has campaigned for and supported wages and a deal that has been done with the Prime Minister, would the minister agree that United Voice is actually responsible for the national quality framework?

Minister, that is really a side issue. The question I ask on that answer is whether membership of United Voice is a requirement for a centre to receive payments under the Early Years Quality Fund, given that anecdotally I have received many reports of unions entering into workplaces, childcare centres and long-day care centres, and insisting to the educators on the floor (1) that they have a meeting and (2) that 60 per cent of them join the union in order for that centre to be eligible for increased funding. I would like the minister to take this opportunity to completely answer: is that or is that not the case?

The other aspect that I would like the minister to address—and it is closely related—is that the Big Steps website and the union United Voice have put out and widely circulated a table of wage increases that will relate to all those who would be successful in receiving funding. Is the minister able to tell us whether that wages schedule is in fact correct? I will just pick one example—it is the one that is most often used—which is that the first increment of a certificate III would receive $3 an hour. Is that what the wage increase would be if a centre were successful?

The third area that I would like to minister to address—again closely related—is the proportion of the workforce that will receive the increased pay. We appreciate that the bill is before the House and has been referred to House and Senate committees. The Big Steps website says that 40 per cent of the workforce will receive this funding and that if you are an educator you therefore have a 40 per cent chance of being able to receive this funding. Does the minister agree with the 40 per cent figure? Other estimates are much lower. I would like to know what proportion of the workforce the minister believes may be eligible for this funding.

So, Minister, if I can just briefly sum up before we hear an answer, those things are, working backwards: what proportion of the workforce do you believe would be able to receive the funding? To what degree does membership of the union United Voice in that workplace influence the ability of those workers to receive the funding? Is the pay schedule that is being widely circulated correct? I probably have enough in that for you to give us a detailed response, thank you.

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

I thank the member for Farrer for her question. One of the things that I think have been most notable in the development of better provision of education and care for young Australians before they enter school has been the absence of strong support from those opposite for the reforms that we have had underway and the investment that we have made. I really think it boggles the mind that the member is standing up and quoting a website to me and talking about anecdotal information that she has received, when I look at the budget and see the most significant ongoing continuing investment in the early childhood and care. I will come to some of those questions in a second, but let us be really clear about it: we have invested record amounts in early childhood care and education, and the government, those that work with the government and members in this Federation Chamber are extremely proud of that significant and ongoing commitment.

Let us look at it. It is about $25.1 billion over the next four years. This makes a direct impact on the lives of families and children. Yes, there is $22.1 billion in direct childcare assistance to parents and that is more than triple the investment. I am very pleased to have my colleague Minister Ellis here with me in the Federation Chamber. I am sure she will be more than willing to take additional questions on this. So there will be $655 million over the next 18 months in the National Partnership Agreement on Early Childhood Education and $300 million, which went to the source of the member's question, to deliver a pay rise to early childhood workers through the Early Years Quality Fund. Before I address those issues, I want to put to the member for Farrer, given the seat she represents, that the earlier response I gave to the shadow minister on the importance of the National Plan for School Improvement is particularly apposite for her, given the fact that she has students and schools in regional—

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

Deputy Speaker, we are halfway through the answer. This has nothing to do with the Gonski reforms in New South Wales.

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

Are you making a point of order?

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

On a point of order, can the minister please come back to the three areas of my question?

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

It is your time, too, member for Farrer.

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

I think I have given myself sufficient time to deal with the shadow minister's questions and I make the point that, if she is concerned about the delivery of education in regional Australia, she will support the National Plan for School Improvement. Certainly we think the establishment of the Early Years Quality Fund goes some way towards dealing with some of the challenges facing those who work in the early childhood care and education sector and we certainly do, as you know, expect the Early Years Quality Fund advisory board to take up its responsibilities as identified as this initiative is developed in time. I am happy to answer a couple of those questions on behalf of the government and to make the point that eligibility criteria and assessment criteria will in fact be considered by the advisory board, and that is as it should be. It should not be any other way.

When you refer to the wages schedule, that is yet to be approved but certainly the government has announced that certificate III will get the $3 up. Again, the member asked me a question about the proportion covered. That will depend on the size of the service, the number of educators and the hours worked. But here is a bigger question which ought to be addressed as I respond: will the coalition ever commit itself to continuing the support for early childhood care and education and the national quality framework which has been the hallmark of the most substantial reforms and delivery in early childhood care and education we have seen in this parliament. That is the question you have to answer here. You have shown no commitment whatsoever to these reforms. We hear nothing from you about the sort of commitment you are likely to make but rather a little bit of petty politics around the side, while the substantial important reforms are delivered quite often in partnership with the states which you and your political partners are a part of. We will continue that commitment over time.

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

Thank you, Minister. I say to members that questioners so far have all been heard in silence. It would be appropriate that the minister is also heard in silence.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

School councils, business managers, principals and parents in my electorate of Higgins are very concerned about the lack of information and detail regarding the government's proposed new funding model and indexation arrangements for state, Catholic and independent schools. They are right to be concerned because the government sat on the Gonski recommendations for more than 18 months. It has, since then, been conducting discussions in secret and we are now less than six months before a new calendar year. Schools do not have any certainty regarding their funding arrangements and cannot plan for the future with the absence of knowledge of what it is they can deliver for their students.

I would like to draw the minister's attention to some of the information available on the public record regarding a number of schools in my electorate. I have done my own analysis of exactly what it is that will be the impact to them as a result of the government's proposed funding and indexation arrangements.

I have looked at the school type, the SES, the population of the school, the fee income total, the fee income per student, the SRS percentage, the Gonski expected minimum fee total, the Gonski expected minimum fee per student. And then I have calculated the fee difference and the percentage increase that will apply to these schools. I would like to go through each one in turn and get the minister's response.

The Holy Eucharist School in my electorate—I have calculated based on that information provided—will have a free differential of $2,843. Just to stand still, it will need to increase parents' fees by 232 per cent; the differential in fees for Our Lady of Lourdes School is $3,282, and the increase in fees for parents is 263 per cent; St Anthony's School, $2,333, an increase to parents of 148 per cent; at St Cecilias School in Glen Iris, parents are going to be hit with an extra $4038 per student, an increase of 257 per cent; St Joseph's Primary School in Malvern, $3064, an increase of 159 per cent; St Mary's School, $3,096 per student, an increase of 151 per cent; St Michael's School, $2,709, an increase of 179 per cent; St Roch's School, $3,436, an increase of 184 per cent. These are just some of the schools in my electorate. I am also particularly concerned about a number of other schools in my electorate as well. I would be very keen for the minister to respond to those figures.

I would also like the minister to respond to the transition to the new funding model. I refer the minister to advice provided during Senate estimates hearings for the Department of Finance and Deregulation last week. It was suggested that the total amount of funding provided across the forward estimates for the National Plan for School Improvement is $2.98 billion comprising of $2.1 billion in redirections, which leaves $880 million in additional funding set aside across the forward estimates for the National Plan for School Improvement.

Previous statements by the Prime Minister suggested that additional funding of $9.8 billion is required to transition all schools to the new funding model over a six-year period. The Prime Minister also suggested that the Gonski model will be transitioned in over six years. I understand the previous modelling of the transition to the full Gonski has been predicated on a straight-line transition over six years. The department of finance did not dispute the assumption that the government's estimates are predicated on a straight-line transition over six years.

My questions are: what transition arrangements are assumed in the budget for the National Plan for School Improvement? What impact will this have on the overall numbers? Will other states and territories be permitted to negotiate different transition paths? If a straight-line transition is assumed in the budget to introduce the new funding model over six years then is it not the case that the budget should have provided for 3.5 years of funding of the $9.8 billion given the model commences in 2014? Does the minister agree that a straight-line transition will translate in monetary terms to some $5.7 billion in additional funding out of $9.8 billion across the forward estimates assuming no growth for enrolment or indexation? Does the minister agree that $880 million over the forward estimates represents only about nine per cent of the total expenditure of the $9.8 billion that had been suggested by the Prime Minister as needed to transition to the new school funding model? Finally, can you provide exact details of the transition funding for each financial year across the forward estimates by state? (Time expired)

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

I expected a little better from the member for Higgins.

An honourable member: I didn't.

Maybe others did not but I did. I expected the member for Higgins given that she had paid such close attention to the timing of the release of the Gonski recommendations would consequently have been aware of the fact that since that period of time, including through the ministerial council, which ministers Dixon and Hall participate in, we have continued to work closely with government and non-government school authorities as we start to finalise the shape, the content and the reform delivery of a National Plan for School Improvement.

This is actually a really big piece of important work done on a scale that we have not seen in the nation before. Coming in here and playing a bit of student politics around figures that have been released by somebody else at some other time and that do not reflect either what is in the budget or what the government's commitment is just does not cut the mustard. You stand judged in this place by the claims and assertions you make, because they do go on to the Hansard. If you want to run a line in here that all those schools that you have mentioned are going to find themselves in the same place as you are alleging, then broadcast it far and wide, member for Higgins, and then bear the consequences of one of two things happening. Firstly, Mr Abbott might persuade the Premier of Victoria that he will not and should not sign on to a National Plan for School Improvement, which includes additional investment over time, and as a consequence you will see less money going to every school around Victoria. Alternatively, he might persuade him to sign on to a National Plan for School Improvement, which this budget contains a commitment for over time.

Ms O'Dwyer interjecting—

Whilst the member interjects, those are the facts of the situation. You will have an opportunity to reflect more closely on this legislation, including the amendments, which we will be discussing in the House. You will have an opportunity to consider it in the light of the New South Wales government's commitment to this National Plan for School Improvement. Why does the member think that the Premier of New South Wales, a Liberal premier, and the national education minister would sign on to a plan for school improvement if it was going to mean that his schools would get less money? This is a totally false allegation and a ridiculous one to boot. The fact is that in 2014 schools will receive at least their 2013 funding levels plus three per cent indexation—an increase in real terms. Many schools will receive extra investment from the new Schooling Resource Standard, which will increase every year from 2014. Those commitments have been absolutely clear, and that is what will happen if Premier Napthine decides to act in the interests of Victorian students.

The member should be very aware of the consequences for a Liberal government in Victoria not accepting the offer that is on the table from the Commonwealth for a National Plan for School Improvement. Around $1.9 million per school and $5,500 per student in the government sector and an average of $1.7 million per school and $3,700 per student in the non-government sector would be lost. That is the issue here, and there could not be a clearer contrast. Running around with a bunch of figures that you have got from somewhere—wherever that may be—without referring to the specific appropriation in the budget amounts to a little bit of game playing that does not get us very far in here. Remember that extra money in the member's electorate alone, or any school, will pay for literacy and numeracy coaches across six year, five class sets of iPads, run a middle-year focus group for three years to improve literacy and numeracy, a highly-accomplished curriculum and learning teacher over three years to support the rollout of the national curriculum, which the opposition leader said today was his great priority. Memo to the opposition: we have been doing education and supporting education ever since we came into government. We will not stand in here and have a bunch of fractious and fictional allegations thrown at us when we are delivering these reforms, which are in the interests of all schools and all students, including in Victoria.

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

My parliamentary colleagues are well aware of my passion for education. In and ever since my maiden speech I have restated the fact that my life is testimony to the truth that education is the great transformer. It has given me choice, opportunity, the chance to pursue dreams and options that I did not dare to dream about. Through education I escaped the cycle of disadvantage and there are millions more like me who have been empowered through education. That is why I believe that world-class, quality schools are vitally important to the future of our country—crucially important. Listening to those opposite, I reflected on my own experience of being educated in the public school system in Victoria when we had back-to-back Liberal governments. I will paint a picture of what it looked like being educated in the public system in Victoria in the seventies and eighties. I remember my days at Donvale High School, where we had to spend a lot of our time in winter ducking buckets that were in the corridors because the roofs were leaking. I remember the facilities we had literally falling down around our ears. I remember the fact that when we had our assemblies we had to sit outside, in great contrast to what I see when I go out to schools now. I also reflect back on the lack of investment that was made in my primary school, Springview Primary School, in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Again, there were little things: we had to sit outside on the asphalt for a school assembly, and compare them now to what I see when I go to assemblies on a weekly basis at the schools in my electorate. They have these beautiful multipurpose facilities. They have libraries: we had a classroom that was a library in the seventies and eighties, but these have purpose-built libraries as a result of the investment and the confidence that Labor has had in educating and in getting our students up to world-class quality.

I am proud that this budget delivered real, long-term investment in schools because our schools just are not performing as they should. One in 12 Australians is not meeting the minimum standards in reading, writing and maths, while students from less-well-off backgrounds, like me, can be up to three years behind their classmates. Our results in international tests have gone backwards, and other countries are racing ahead of us. I was absolutely delighted that last Thursday the ACT government signed up to the National Plan for School Improvement. I know that this will transform the lives of so many young men and women in my electorate of Canberra.

Under the agreement between the ACT and the federal governments the total public investment in ACT schools will be around $5 billion in the six years over 2014-19. That is around $190 million extra over this period. The agreement also includes commitments from both the Commonwealth and ACT governments to maintain and grow our existing school funding over the next years. It also includes an agreement between the two governments for $26 million to establish a centre for quality teaching and learning at the University of Canberra. The centre will deliver professional skills and applied, practice-led research to support the introduction of the National Plan for School Improvement reforms. Prior to entering parliament I tutored in PR at the University of Canberra, and I know that the UC already produces fine graduates in all areas, including teaching. This centre will ensure that the teachers in Canberra and the region have access to the best possible training and development opportunities, and will make Canberra the region's leader in education.

The National Plan for School Improvement will make Australia a top-five country in maths, reading and science, and top five in equity and quality by 2025. I strongly believe that investing in education is the best thing we can do for the future of the country, and I am particularly proud of the government for introducing these bold, nationbuilding reforms.

However, I am also concerned about the future of these reforms given that the coalition has made no commitment to see them through if elected in September. The coalition has already promised pain and suffering for Canberra with its promise to slash up to 20,000 Public Service jobs, and I worry that it will bring more pain and suffering to Canberra's schools. Could the minister please explain what, if the coalition is elected in September, will happen to the agreement between the ACT and Commonwealth governments on the long-term education commitments in this budget, and to the schoolchildren in my electorate of Canberra?

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

I think the member for Canberra for her question—

Mr Tudge interjecting—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has not had anything to say, so there is no point of order.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a point of order in relation to the question. The question was asked about coalition policy when the minister is the minister of the government's policy. If the question were asked of the government's policy that would be in order, but how could a question about the coalition's policy be in order?

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. The member for Aston makes a point of order. I call the minister, but he must be relevant to his portfolio.

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

I can assure you I will be relevant to the portfolio. I thank the member very much for that question. I know she has a very strong commitment to education and she was extremely supportive when the ACT government agreed with the Commonwealth for a new needs-based funding model to be delivered to students here in the ACT. Her question to me was what would the implications be, given the budgetary commitment that we have made, if there were to be a continuation of the current broken funding model under a coalition government? The answer is that, over the next six years, the ACT would lose a total of around $40 million for government schools and $60 million for non-government schools. That is $100 million that you would not see going to educate students in the ACT. And I congratulate the school systems, plural, in the ACT, government and non-government. It is a high-performing territory. There is no question that principals and teachers here are doing a great job, but they need that support.

So those would be the consequences if we were not able to secure the agreement of other states or if the coalition wanted to tear up this agreement between Chief Minister Katy Gallagher, for the ACT, and the Prime Minister. That shows in absolutely stark contrast the difference between this government and what is on offer over on the other side.

I should also take this opportunity, knowing that the member for Canberra has a great interest in this, to identify some of the support for the implementation of the National Plan for School Improvement that was contained in the budget. Of course, there is the support for the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority—$19.2 million for further resources for the implementation of the national curriculum, because that is an important part of the National Plan for School Improvement. For the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, there is $14.3 million for more resources for teachers and principals. There is $7½ million over three years for Education Services Australia to deliver resources for teachers in relation to phase 3 of the curriculum, which is absolutely critical and crucial. There are additional investments as well, such as the National Partnership on Youth Attainment and Transitions. Importantly—and I can see Minister Macklin is here—there is the Indigenous education targeted assistance program, the National Partnership Agreement on Early Childhood Education and support for young Australians, particularly through the Youth Connections program. All of these things are a wrap; they are a wrap not only around the investment quantum itself and the commitment but also around what young people need and are entitled to to learn to the best of their ability wherever they are living, whether they are here in the ACT or further afield.

That is what lies in this budget. That is the commitment that this government has always had to making sure that all Australians get the best possible education and that no child is left behind. It is on those principles that this budget is grounded, and that is the commitment we have—to deliver a national plan for school improvement which will continue through the life of this parliament.

So I thank the member for Canberra very much for her question. As I said, I was very pleased to see that historic agreement between the ACT government and the Commonwealth to provide additional resources in her electorate and in the member for Fraser's electorate which I know will contribute greatly to the wellbeing and education prospects of young Canberrans.

Debate adjourned.

Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $2,389,033,000

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Disability Reform) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be joined today by my ministerial colleagues the Minister for Housing and Homelessness, and the Minister for Community Services and Minister for the Status of Women. We did have some parliamentary secretaries with us but they seem to have stepped out for a moment. I say that just so members opposite know that we have people with the varying portfolio responsibilities here today.

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

I appreciate the minister's attendance. It is an unusual occurrence in my experience of this debate. Yesterday the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation went AWOL during the portfolio debate, so it is great to have three ministers at the table. Thank you very much for indulging this chamber. It is a great honour for us to have such esteemed company this afternoon—and, obviously, you will be able to answer questions too, Minister, because you know the answers.

If you would not mind, Minister, I will start with a pet topic of mine and also of the member for Higgins, who is at the table, which is the use of Australian taxpayers' money to advertise a payment which will be received come what may by people in the electorate. In this instance I refer in particular to the advertising for and around the so-called schoolkids bonus, which of course my constituents are fully aware and I know constituents across the country are fully aware we intend to abolish because it is paid for out of mining tax revenue which does not exist. It is paid for out of a revenue stream which was expected to be there: $4 billion in this financial year. They collected some five per cent of expected revenue, but magically they expect in the coming years to jump back up to that elusive target of $12 billion, I think it was, over the forward estimates. As my friend Senator Mathias Cormann has highlighted so effectively and efficiently in the Senate, that is just a pipedream, a tax which increases our sovereign risk but does not actually achieve the revenue targets, but the government has still spent the money.

In that sense, I ask the minister a series of questions in relation to the schoolkids bonus. I refer in particular to answer No. 1 provided to a question on notice from the supplementary estimates in February regarding research conducted in relation to the schoolkids bonus by Taylor Nelson Sofres Australia. Can you table this research in this chamber for us to consider? What was the scope of the research? Can you table the brief that was given to TNS by the department?

In an answer provided to a further question on notice, No. 2, the department stated that the findings of the research showed that people were confused about the assistance available to families and wanted clear information. How have these findings influenced the communication strategy of the department—I do not want to use the old term 'moving forward'—going forward? Have any communication initiatives besides the schoolkids kits—they were the kits that were sent to all our offices, and we appreciate those, Minister; I think we got a letter to ask for a kit, from memory—been instituted as a result of the findings of the research? If not, why not? How many of the kits in total have been distributed to date?

I note that $3.5 million has been allocated in the 2013-14 budget to continue the schoolkids bonus communications campaign, in your PBS at page 48. Can you provide a breakdown of how these funds will be expended? Have the advertisements that are to be funded by this expenditure already been produced? If so, are they the same advertisements that have been running since 2012, or will there be a new campaign? If there is a new campaign, why were the old advertisements not deemed to be sufficient to continue to be used? What are the implications in terms of costs for drafting a new series of advertisements, as opposed to continuing the existing campaign?

Given that the schoolkids bonus has been in place for more than 12 months and has extensively been advertised, what is the need to continue to advertise the payment to this extent? Surely those receiving the payment are now well and truly informed of what it is for. Minister, this is the use of Australian taxpayers' money to advertise something that people will get in any event. I would be interested in your answers.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Disability Reform) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I first of all remind the member for Mayo that today is the consideration in detail of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014 for the budget in 2013-14, and the measures that he is referring to were funded in last year's budget. So, if he would like—

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

They continue.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Disability Reform) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, but they are not funded as part of this appropriation bill. So, if the member would like—

Mr Briggs interjecting—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, the member for Mayo will listen in silence. The minister was kind enough for all that time to listen in silence to your questions.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Disability Reform) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Anyway, if the member would like to give me all those questions, we will have a look at them, but I will just correct a couple of other matters that he raised. He asserted that the schoolkids bonus was paid for by the mining tax. If I can also correct the member for Mayo: that is false, and he should know by now that that is false.

Mr Briggs interjecting—

It is false and the member for Mayo should know that it is false. One thing that is not false about what the member for Mayo said is that if the Liberals are successful at the next election then they will take this money off families, even though it is not funded from the mining tax, so his whole rationale has no basis in fact whatsoever. What that will mean for families is that they will lose, over the school life of their children, $15,000. That means $15,000 will come out of the pockets of families, because of decisions made by this Leader of the Opposition. The member for Mayo should get out there and tell every single family member in his electorate currently receiving the Schoolkids Bonus that that is exactly what he intends to do. He intends to take $15,000 out of their pockets, money that they use. This is money that those families use to pay for school shoes, to pay for school books, to pay for school uniforms, to pay for excursions—all the things that children need.

The member for Mayo also talked about the families kits. He asked a whole range of questions, and I will have a look at those later. I would like to inform the member for Mayo that kits have been ordered by the member for Hughes, the member for McMillan, the member for Leichhardt and the member for Calare. Plainly all of those members have found the families kits very, very useful, and they will be handing them out to their constituents. I hope when the member for Hughes, the member for McMillan, the member for Leichhardt and the member for Calare are handing out their Schoolkids Bonus, they put in an extra note from the Leader of the Opposition which tells the truth about the Schoolkids Bonus. This note should tell the truth that the Leader of the Opposition is going to take all of this money straight off families. That is exactly what he intends to do. When you are distributing your families kits and telling people what they are going to lose, make sure you do not miss that one.

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

I would like to hear more from the minister in relation to the Closing the Gap targets. I acknowledge that the government has done a lot in this area. I am particularly interested in measures included in this budget which will help us close the gap, particularly in the area of health but also in related areas. Will the minister update the House in respect of the Closing the Gap payments, and whether there are any risks associated and alternative policies in this area.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Disability Reform) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Throsby for his ongoing interest in Indigenous affairs. Today, the Minister for Early Childhood and Youth and I announced that there would be a new Closing the Gap target that we want to see met. This target is to make sure that all Indigenous four-year-olds right across Australia not only have a preschool place to go to but are attending regularly. We will negotiate that with the states and territories. I am very pleased to inform the member for Throsby that that was announced just today. There is money behind this initiative that the minister for early childhood is responsible for.

Specifically in the area of the health that the member for Throsby asked about, there are two areas. In particular this year's budget includes a $777 million ongoing commitment to Indigenous health. This is to make sure that the commitments we made a few years ago continue. We know that we have a lot of work still to do to make sure that we close an unacceptable gap in life expectancy. The problems in this area go to terrible chronic illness experienced by many, many Indigenous people. Smoking rates are too high. We want to make sure that Indigenous babies are born healthy. We want to make sure that pregnant mums are getting the advice they need about how to look after themselves and their babies when their babies come along. There is a very substantial commitment to Indigenous health.

We had a number of other important announcements in this year's budget. The minister for school education has a very substantial commitment as part of the school-improvement program for additional, specific funding to make sure that Indigenous children at school get the targeted support they need with literacy and numeracy, and with their other education. We have targets for literacy and numeracy. We also have targets for year 12 completion. We want to see those met, and the only way they will be met is by making sure that our Indigenous children get the very best education, both at primary and secondary school levels.

There were some other very important initiatives in this year's budget. One area that is very significant is the ongoing funding commitment to the Cape York welfare reforms. These have been shown, as a result of a recent evaluation that was published, to have been very successful at making sure that we see improved social norms in the Cape York welfare areas of Coen, Mossman Gorge, Aurukun and Hopevale and the money that this government is allocating in this year's budget will make sure that those Cape York welfare reforms can continue.

I have been very concerned, to make sure that we get an ongoing commitment from the Queensland government as well. We do have some additional funding coming from Queensland but we certainly do not have what has traditionally been provided by the Queensland government. This government is pressing Queensland to make sure that they meet the same level of commitment that they have met in the past. I would say to those opposite how important it is, in this area of Indigenous affairs. This government has been prepared to make 10-year commitments in Indigenous affairs, whether it be remote Indigenous housing that has been a 10-year commitment or the commitment we made in the Northern Territory to Stronger Futures, which was the major focus earlier. Each of these are long-term commitments, because we know that meeting our Closing-the-Gap targets will require that level of determined investment. I do hope that we will see that agreed to by those opposite.

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

Regarding one issue from before that the minister made a comment on, as I read the budget papers, there is $3½ million in the communication space in relation to the schoolkids bonus. The line item was relevant; in any event, Minister, you said you would take the questions on notice.

Ms Macklin interjecting—

That is generous of you; thank you. Back onto the schoolkids bonus, and I am sorry to continue to focus on this borrowed money, as the minister confirmed, which has been handed out. We are very happy to tell our constituents that we do not think pushing intergenerational debt onto their children is a good idea. We do not support borrowing money to hand out for free when you do not have the money in the first place. We are very happy to tell that story—between now and the election.

Minister, I refer to page 48 of the 2013-14 Budget Related Paper No. 1.7: Families, Housing, Community Service and Indigenous Affairs Portfolio, specifically the line item for the schoolkids bonus. You will see that the amount allocated for the schoolkids bonus in 2012-13 is $1,407,431. In last year's budget paper, the amount allocated for 2012-13 was $1,254,478. That is a $153 million increase, in reality, between last year's budget paper and this year's. Why was there a $153 million increase in the expenditure on the schoolkids bonus program in 2012-13 compared with the 2012-13 estimate in last year's budget? Is this a structural increase? Why is there no commensurate adjustment increase in the 2013-14 estimate and in the forward estimates, assuming that the criteria for the eligibility of the schoolkids bonus remains a constant?

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Disability Reform) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will get some advice from the department.

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

I am very pleased this afternoon to be able to put some questions to the ministers in relation to the very important portfolio areas that they represent. I certainly know that many members of my electorate have been and are ongoing beneficiaries of your respective portfolios. I would like to reflect on those benefits they have received and also inquire about the initiatives this government has pursued in advancing the cause of the economic and social participation of women. Needless to say, that objective is pursued right across government. I particularly seek to ask FaHCSIA.

Constituents in my electorate have been the beneficiary of the Paid Parental Leave scheme in no uncertain terms. A good section of my electorate is made up of very young families and people who are planning to have families in the near future. To date, I understand there are around 2,150 recipients and claimants of paid parental leave. Paid parental leave is a really transformative initiative that this government has driven. It stands in quite stark contrast to the grab-bag of whatever it is that is being presented by those opposite in paid parental leave. We are providing women with some certainty.

I note, for the benefit of the member for Mayo, there are around 1,400 paid parental leave recipients or claimants who are likely to be beneficiaries of our scheme in his part of the world. It is marvellous to know that he is here this afternoon and has the opportunity to hear about the benefits of paid parental leave and about women's economic and social participation in the FaHCSIA portfolio.

Mr Briggs interjecting—

It is good to see the member for Mayo interjecting on such an important topic as workforce participation by women, which is obviously what our paid parental leave scheme is all about.

Mr Briggs interjecting—

Ms Macklin interjecting—

But I do not know what yours is these days, member for Mayo. It changes by the moment.

In addition to the Paid Parental Leave scheme, I know that ministers have done great work together with a number of their other ministerial colleagues in increasing the childcare rebate from 30 to 50 per cent and lifting the cap on the total amount of childcare that parents can claim. So these are two incredibly practical measures for women seeking to return to the workforce and women temporarily departing the workforce to have families.

In addition to that we have introduced significant measures such as raising the tax-free threshold from $6,000 to $18,000, which clearly impacts the circumstances of women who are in part-time and casual work. In fact, 70 per cent of those in part-time and casual work are women so this stands to be a very considerable benefit.

There are also a number of other initiatives that the government and its ministers have embarked on including the Workplace Gender Equality Act, where employers of 100 or more employees must report on pay equity and flexible work arrangements. Obviously a great deal of work has been done in advancing the cause of pay equity.

I was recently able to go and visit a number of families in my electorate who have been the beneficiaries of our very considerable investment in social housing towards the northern end of my electorate. I can think particularly of one woman who had split up from her partner. She is a nurse. She has a number of children and she is involved in a range of volunteer activities in charity work. Social housing has turned her life and her circumstances around. It has given her some economic and social certainty and security, and it has given her family an extraordinary boost.

With all of that in mind, I ask the minister this afternoon why have women's economic and social participation been so important in the context of this budget right across the term? What measures in particular have been advanced to enable women to have greater economic and social participation?

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

I thank the member for La Trobe for her very important question. Improving women's economic participation is very important for the Australian economy. Indeed, if we close the gap between women and men's workforce participation in Australia, we could grow the economy by almost $13 billion. So it is very significant indeed.

This year's budget does have some very significant measures in it which will benefit women's economic participation, particularly the two headline items of the budget, which are disability care and the National Plan for School Improvement. What we know about disability is that it affects everybody. The impact on carers and the community are very significant. Two out of three carers of people with disability are women. So women will benefit from this disability care policy that the minister beside me, the Minister for Disability Reform, Minister Macklin, has been championing. Women with disability are less likely to be in paid work than other women or than the general population. They are also less likely to be in work than men with disability.

We know that the caring also impacts not only on workforce participation but on social and health outcomes for women. Female carers of people with disability have, for instance, significantly poorer mental health than male carers and women in the general population. Disability care will be very significant in turning some of this around for men and women in our community, but particularly for those women who are carers.

I turn now to the National Plan for School Improvement. Women's earnings, post school education and workforce participation are critically dependent on their early schooling. We know that women earn less, that the gender pay gap in Australia is still around 17 per cent. Historically, over the last 20 years, it has been between 15 per cent and 20 per cent. So we do have a lot of work to do when it comes to closing that gender pay gap. But this government has done a lot of work.

The member for La Trobe referred to some of our pay equity measures. In last year's budget we had a measure to support the equal remuneration decision for social and community services workers. There is ongoing money every year out of a special account to support that decision. Around $3 billion has been committed by the federal government to pay our fair share of that very important decision to ensure that women—and men—in the social and community services are actually receiving those pay increases, which were awarded from 1 December last year. Of the community service workers affected by this decision, 120,000 of the 150,000 are women. That is very significant.

This budget also has the Early Years Quality Fund, which will provide $300 million over two years to support wage increases for workers in early childhood education and care. We know that women make up 95 per cent of the early childhood education sector. So, again, this is really important for closing that pay gap between men and women in Australia.

There are also a lot of new measures in the budget to support women's economic participation. To establish BoardLinks, $4.3 million is being provided. BoardLinks is about achieving our target of 40 per cent women, 40 per cent men and 20 per cent either gender on government boards. We have made improvements in that area. Last year it was 38.4 per cent. So we are slowly making our way. The target is to get there by 2015. We certainly hope we do.

There was also money in the budget for the personal safety of women—improving women's health and safety in Australia. In particular, $44 million was allocated to a number of initiatives to keep women across the country safer. Some $5.2 million over five years was budgeted to establish a national foundation to prevent violence against women and their children. This foundation will do really important community work, working with the government, the non-government sector, business and the community to raise awareness of the issues and to look at what will work in preventing violence against women and their children. We want to change social behaviour with this foundation and to change community attitudes. So it is a very significant initiative.

We have also invested $28.5 million in 1800 RESPECT, our national professional counselling hotline. Anybody in Australia can ring that hotline if they have been affected, or if one of their family members has been affected, by sexual violence. They can get professional counselling support. That funding has been extended until 2017. Again, that is very significant.

As you can tell, the budget this year does contain a lot of measures to support women and women's economic participation, but also, importantly, their social participation—things like disability care and the personal safety initiatives aimed at ensuring that all women in Australia can be safer into the future.

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

An issue the opposition has been concerned with for some time has been the chaos and dysfunction at the heart of executive government in Australia. We have seen increasingly—and we have seen it again today with the member for Werriwa out there saying at a doorstop just—

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Disability Reform) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order: this is consideration in detail about the appropriation bills. There are three ministers and one parliamentary secretary here. The opposition cannot even rustle up anybody serious, let alone a question.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

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

While the questions are not so serious, I wish the minister would just answer them. The member for Werriwa is out there saying, 'We are dead.' No wonder she is raising points of order. I raise a matter which I raised yesterday in a similar consideration in detail stage with the Minister for Human Services, and I ask the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs: in March this year—and I congratulate her on her promotion. She was promoted on the mass resignation day in March when there was a leadership challenge.

Ms Macklin interjecting—

You were promoted before that, were you? I apologise, Minister. You have been in that position for a bit longer. In any event, yesterday we—

Ms Macklin interjecting—

No, I was not. I was congratulating you on your promotion, Minister. There was no rudeness intended. The rudeness is in the chaos and dysfunction which your cabinet is overseeing. Yesterday we established in this committee and in estimates that the Minister for Human Services has not received a charter letter from the Prime Minister, which is a very usual practice in our system of government. When there was an adult government in charge, when the government was the Howard government, the normal practice was that ministers would always receive a charter letter outlining exactly their responsibilities. In any normal workplace an employee would receive a job description. It is, in effect, the job description from the Prime Minister to the minister—the operating instructions for that ministry. I ask the minister for community services: has she received her charter letter from the Prime Minister?

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Disability Reform) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the minister responsible, I will take that question on behalf of all of my colleagues. One thing I can guarantee the member for Mayo is each and every one of the members of the executive knows exactly what their responsibilities are, unlike those opposite, who cannot even be bothered to turn up to ask questions about a very significant part of this year's budget, which has at its heart the creation of DisabilityCare. Each and every one of us understands what our responsibilities are.

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

On a point of order as to relevance, Mr Deputy Speaker: I asked the minister for community services a very direct question. It is very easy for her to answer the question. Yes or no, has she received her charter letter? It is an important issue.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to.

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

I sometimes wonder, when I hear the sorts of questions we have just heard, which is almost a repeat of what I heard here yesterday afternoon at a similar time, about the game playing that seems to be at the forefront of much of what those opposite seem intent on doing in this place. My question goes to a matter of substance. Sadly, under the leadership of the current Leader of the Opposition there has been a dismantling of hope in this country and a dismantling of a sense of the capacity for the elected officials of this country to transform and improve the lives of those who come after us. My question is seeking to put on the record the fact that DisabilityCare, which is significantly funded in this appropriation, will have a very powerful impact right around the country.

I want to refer to two things that relate to my own electorate. Firstly, the minister was scheduled to visit my electorate to attend a disability forum. We had to graciously accept her inability on that day because she had very important business in Queensland which was to sign up the Queensland government to DisabilityCare. I look forward to her imminent return to my community. I was very happy at that forum in regard to DisabilityCare that we were able to share as a community some of the very real challenges that are presenting for people who need this appropriation to be passed by this place and who need this change of policy and the funding attached to it to make it a live and real thing in our community. I also want to refer briefly to a salutary story. I was speaking to some constituents—Year 6 students from Terrigal Primary School, from Our Lady Star of the Sea primary school, from Holy Cross primary school and from St Patrick's primary school. I had four of my local schools visit in the week that disability care legislation was going through. I was able to make clear to them in a way that was not veiled in the negativity of the media the power of this place and the hope that lives in this place to transform the lives of ordinary Australians.

At that disability meeting, a mother stood up and explained what the capping of funds and the current structure really mean. There was not a soul in that place that day who could walk away without remembering this story. This mum has a son who has a life-shortening disability. For the last two years, despite multiple requests, she has been unable to get him a wheelchair so that he can move around in the community. There have been promises that it will arrive, but the promises are held out in the future. The fear now is that the special equipment that he needed will now no longer be suitable for him to use because he has grown. They are looking down the barrel of another two years of possible redress if the current system were maintained.

It is critical that we make this sort of change that the government is proposing. It is critical that this bill goes through, because these are not abstract dollars, abstracts ideas or abstract people. These are real Australians, real children, real families who need these very real dollars that we are prepared to invest in a better future for Australians. I am particularly interested in hearing from the minister about the redress to that situation. The fully-funded rollout of Disability Care Australia that was announced in this budget has given heart and hope to the people of my community. It is an authentic piece of work that will transform local lives. I would really like the minister to provide some more detailed information about the funding for the full rollout of disability care across the country, but, as a New South Welshwoman, I am particularly interested in your perspective on how it will transform the lives of people in New South Wales. In addition to changing the reality I have just described, this funding will improve the lives of people, families and carers who have had to manage disability over a long time—through very dark times in our country.

After I had described the situation to those local school students, I asked them whether that was a picture of a fair Australia. With one voice, those 12 year olds were able to say: 'No, that is not fair. It was not fair. What is this government going to do to make that fairness part of Australian culture?'

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Disability Reform) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do thank the member for Robertson very much for that heartfelt question and once again I apologise to her and to her constituents for not being able to come to her electorate on that day. As she correctly says, the Prime Minister and I were with the Premier of Queensland. It was a very significant day for the state of Queensland as it signed on to the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Disability Care Australia. The member for Robertson and I are making sure that we can get together next week in her electorate to talk with her constituents about this most significant reform. As some have described it, it is the reform of a generation. I think the reason it is described in that way is that there are so many people around the country who are living their lives in the way that the member for Robertson has just described. People do have to wait and wait and wait for a wheelchair and, when it comes—if it is for a child—it no longer fits. Then they have to wait again. The system is broken; the system is under-funded; and that is why this government has decided to change it. For the first time ever, in this budget it is fully funded.

In last year's budget, of course, we had the first $1 billion to make sure that we could start DisabilityCare Australia, and I will talk in a minute about how it is going to start. I am very pleased that the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers has joined us. But can I say just how significant it is to have $14.3 billion allocated and committed in this year's budget, which will give to the family that you describe the sort of security that they have never, ever had before. I am sure that you could describe other supports that this family has been waiting for and has not been able to get.

One of the biggest areas of concern from families, of course, is the lack of access to respite and the lack of security about where their adult sons or daughters will live once mum and dad pass on. This is a huge worry for so many ageing parents who want to know that there will be supported accommodation when they are no longer there to care for their son or daughter who has a disability.

We are, as the member for Robertson said, very, very pleased that we have an agreement in New South Wales for the full rollout of DisabilityCare Australia, and I pay credit to the Premier of New South Wales for stepping up and agreeing in the way that he did. He really came to the table with the attitude that, for around 150,000 people with disability—and of course that does not include their family members or the carers, who will also benefit—we are about to change their lives. Most significantly in New South Wales, where the largest launch site is going to be, it is all going to start in just a few weeks time, on 1 July, in the Hunter region. It is completely funded both in last year's budget and now right out into the future, so the people of New South Wales can be secure.

In the electorate of the member for Robertson, we estimate that there are around 2½ thousand people with significant and permanent disabilities who will be covered by DisabilityCare. But not only are you going to be saying to the people with disability that they can now know that they will get the care and support they need into the future; you can also be sure to say to the carers and to their family members, 'Your life will be able to change as a result of this major reform that is the centrepiece of this year's budget.' I thank the member for Robertson very, very much for her question.

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

On indulgence, I offer my congratulations to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs for pursuing this issue. It is an issue which has been pursued with the agreement and the cooperation of the relevant shadow minister on our side of the political divide, Senator Mitch Fifield, who has been pursuing this on our behalf and in a bipartisan fashion. We are with the government every step of the way in the implementation of this scheme, and we agree with the minister that it is long overdue. I am glad to see that today there was the agreement to establish the bipartisan committee to take this, post this parliament, into future parliaments, and I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers, who is at the table, for doing that in the chamber today.

Minister, can I turn your attention to the income management trial sites, please. It is obviously an issue that the government has put some time and a fair portion of expenditure into in the last short time. In fairness, I will add that members of the Labor Party in government have pursued this issue. The member for Wakefield has made this point. He has areas in South Australia which have some long-term and difficult issues in relation to unemployment and generational unemployment. The member for Wakefield—I think it was two budgets ago—made some public comments in relation to the trialling of income management. I think the government has taken up some of his suggestions, and I am sure the minister will correct me if I am wrong there. Minister, how many people are being income managed at present in the respective trial sites? How many of these persons were placed on income management voluntarily, and how many were referred to you by Centrelink or state child protection authorities?

This is a slightly different strand of questioning: is the minister or the department aware of situations where the CPSU has been instructing Centrelink workers not to refer Centrelink customers; is the department or the minister aware that child protection workers represented by the PSA in New South Wales have placed an official ban on the implementation of income management; is the minister or the department aware that these workers have placed a ban on the implementation of income management in the relevant trial sites; has the minister or the minister's office, or the department, met with any members of the PSA in New South Wales to discuss their ban and if not why not; what action or response has the department undertaken in relation to those PSA workers who are refusing to enforce income management; and what action or response has the minister or her office, or the department—

Ms Macklin interjecting—

The minister had a go at me for not asking questions, and so I am asking some questions. Maybe I am not seeing her enough to ask questions—I apologise. What action or response has the minister or the office, or the department, undertaken in relation to the PSA workers who are refusing to enforce income management? Finally, is it fair to say that this ban by the PSA would go some way to explaining why there have been so few people placed on income management in these trial sites?

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Disability Reform) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Mayo for his questions. As I am sure he is aware, I am a supporter of income management and I have to say I have pursued it with some policy vigour in many parts of Australia. The area that is relevant to this year's budget is the continuation and expansion of income management in Western Australia, where we have had income management in place for some time—in fact, since 2008.

We have had an independent evaluation of income management in Western Australia, which I assume the member for Mayo has seen. It certainly showed that the majority of people who participated in income management, either compulsorily or voluntarily, thought that income management made their children's lives better. I can inform the member that there are currently around 1,600 people participating in income management in Western Australia—1,100 of those are on voluntary income management—and there is money in this year's budget to continue that work in Western Australia for another year. I do thank the Western Australian government and the relevant ministers for their cooperation. We have recently expanded income management to the Ngaanyatjarra Lands in Laverton, and that is funded from money in this year's budget. We do understand that there are many people in that area who have been calling us to expand the program in this way.

The member for Mayo is right to say that, in his home state, the member for Wakefield has been very supportive of these initiatives. He and I have worked together on these matters in Adelaide, in Playford, and of course we have also put income management in place in Bankstown in New South Wales, Logan and Rockhampton in Queensland and Shepparton in Victoria. Those initiatives were in the budget two years ago. In this year's budget the initiative relates to Western Australia, and I have given the member the relevant figures.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The proposed expenditure now before the Federation Chamber is for the Finance and Deregulation portfolio, $847,302,000. The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to.

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

I want to begin this contribution by asking some questions of the Assistant Treasurer with respect to finance. It goes to the heart of the government's transparency or lack thereof in the presentation of the budget.

I would like to draw the Assistant Treasurer's attention to the persistence in the budget of the Treasurer himself and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation in defining savings not only as expenditure reductions, which everyone out in the Australian community understands, but also tax rises. This is something that has not been commented on a lot.

I draw the Assistant Treasurer's attention to not just the budget papers but the press release issued in his name on budget night that talks about new savings a number of times on tax issues. The point is quite obvious. This is a deliberate deception conceived by this government. In fact, it is not something it has slipped in to; it was conceived in the very first budget in 2008 where this new definition was adopted for the first time.

As you would appreciate, Deputy Speaker Symon, in everyday households if they are planning their family budgets and they want to save some money, they have to spend less on something they are spending on. They have to spend less, they have to reduce spending or they have to eliminate something entirely. No household, no small business, no business counts an increase in revenue as a saving. But that is exactly what this government does and it does it deliberately because it wants to try and con the public into thinking that it has made greater expenditure reductions than it has and it wants to try and conceal its tax increases.

I have referred to the Assistant Treasurer's press release. I have referred to the fact that this is a practice that was invented by this government.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Proceedings suspended from 17:29 to 17:42

I continue my comments on the government's deception in its budget papers in defining savings as both expenditure reductions and tax increases. Yesterday, in this very committee, the Assistant Treasurer repeated this deception. He said that there were a little over $40 billion of budget savings over the next four years. I make the point that, of that more than $40 billion—it is about $42 billion on the government's dishonest figures—60 per cent of these deemed savings are new or increased taxes, $25 billion in the next four years.

I ask the Assistant Treasurer why he persists with this practice, why the government deliberately set out in 2008 to try to deceive the Australian public and why he is comfortable repeating these falsehoods, as he did yesterday here in this chamber. As I pointed out in my earlier contribution before the division, it is something that a few in the media have picked up on; it is not just the opposition. In fact, towards the end of last year, in The Weekend Australian, Peter van Onselen made the point:

Finally, a few uncomfortable facts that puncture Labor's artificial narrative of economic success.

"Savings", as Labor MPs keep referring to them, include tax increases, not just spending cuts. Average voters would consider such rhetoric tricky.

I ask the Assistant Treasurer to respond.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Casey for his contribution. This government has been very much focused on delivering responsible savings not just throughout this budget but also through previous budgets. I think it would be fair to say that so responsible were these savings that they have been, it would appear, accepted and adopted holus bolus by the opposition. That, I think, is a significant point to make. The member for Casey has not reflected upon the fact that his leader has indicated that so good a budget was this that they will be adopting those savings measures in full. The member for Casey referred to the press release, and I encourage him to table that press release because it is a fine document that sets out some of the significant reforms that our government is undertaking in relation to taxation—in particular, to corporation taxation.

I know that the member for Casey has had the unfortunate task of having to come into the House on various occasions and defend the very poor record of the opposition when it comes to supporting our government's efforts to crack down on corporate tax erosion and corporate tax loopholes. In fact, over the short period that I have been the Assistant Treasurer we have introduced measures that have collectively protected the revenue base to the order of $10 billion or greater. Each of these measures has met with the opposition of the opposition. I know they are called the opposition, but that does not mandate that on every occasion they should say no to sensible policy that is in the national interest.

I note that the member opposite seeks to quibble with the figures that we have asserted in terms of the responsible savings that we have put in place. He is also suggesting that there is somehow some duplicity in the approach that the government is adopting. What I think is worth acknowledging is that in his budget-in-reply speech, the Leader of the Opposition spoke of what he says is a budget emergency. I think we all understand that when the Australian economy is held up side by side with every other advanced economy in the world, we can stand tall.

We can stand tall because, since the global financial crisis, our economy has grown 13 per cent. That is without peer in the advanced world. We have created, in the time we have been in office, almost one million jobs. Those opposite seek to dismiss this as something that is not a great achievement, something that just happened—the economy is on autopilot, jobs are created and growth occurs. They should have a look at what is happening all around the world. The performance of any given economy in a global context is relative, and we continue to grow at a pace that outstrips just about every other advanced economy. We continue to generate jobs. We continue to maintain inflation at contained levels.

Interest rates that are presently at very low levels. Those opposite, when in government, made a virtue of low interest rates; they said it was the symbol of good economic management. In fact, they even fraudulently won an election—in 2004, it was—on the basis that they would keep interest rates at record lows. And then we had increase after increase after increase. In fact, I think there were 10 consecutive increases after they had made the commitment that they would keep interest rates at record lows.

Now that interest rates are at low levels they assert that this is no longer, in their new paradigm, a measure of the success of an economy; it is a sign of economic weakness. Well, they should go and have a look at their so-called 'real plan' that suggests that you would keep interest rates lower than the government. What does that say about the sort of economic emergency that you would have thrust upon the Australian people? Frankly, the economy has been resilient and this budget not only recognises that but makes long-term investments in the future.

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

Just very briefly, I would like to take up the Assistant Treasurer's offer to table the press release in his name and the name of the Treasurer from budget night that shows the duplicity of the government and that has been kindly annotated, by my adviser, where the government has been dishonest. They label protecting the corporate tax base as a saving when, in fact, it is a revenue measure. They do the same thing on a more responsive tax system but they slip up on taxation of trust, where they call this a net gain to revenue.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is leave granted to table the document?

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not to the extent that this document has been annotated.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is not granted.

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

I want to talk about ways in which we are improving the delivery of government through the use of web based initiatives. I direct this to the Assistant Treasurer. The work that has been done in measuring the impact of greater usage within the broader economy and, in particular, Deloitte Access Economics last year pointed out that the contribution of the internet to the economy predicted to balloon seven per cent over the next five years, increasing from $50 billion now to $70 billion and, as more homes get connected tho this, will increase the value of economic growth in Australia. In particular, what they point out is the ability to track down information is more efficient with spending, amounts to a saving of about $500 per person or $7 billion nationally, and the productivity impact in workplaces in 2011 calculated that business in government would generate $27 billion in value through the productivity benefit. The reason I go to that is, in particular—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—

I would not expect you to understand anything about technology, member for Mackellar. If I could take you to page 290—

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was rude!

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

You are asking me not to be rude! I have heard everything now from the member for Higgins. If I could take you to page 290 of budget paper 2, it talks about spending of just a shade over $9 million over four years, to implement a web based whole-of-government electronic grants advertising application reporting system. There a number of organisations in my electorate that from time to time would benefit from being able to access funding to do a variety of things in our area. You often are just reliant on seeing ads in the newspaper and then it is pure chance as to whether or not you will pick that up and whether or not there would be another way in which to ensure casting the net wide enough for organisations to be able to submit for grants and then being able to—particularly in our areas—have those community groups access that funding deployed on the ground and see change happen in our neighbourhood.

I was interested in seeing in that section how the system would work. I would be keen to find out from you how you see that system work. How will it compare to the current situation for grant administration, especially when you contrast the way in which organisations get access to understand whether or not a round is open and how they can then bid and walk their way through the application process, and why is necessary? Also, on the issue of the web based element, can you let us know how that is going to operate and does it mean that everyone will be able to see what grants are available and what grants have been awarded? I would like to gain more information on that initiative.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Chifley. That is the second very insightful question he has asked me today.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You wrote it!

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not write the question for the member for Chifley. The member for Chifley is one of the most tech-savvy members of this place. I would not seek to put words into his mouth—or his iPad—because he is

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—

Thank you very much for that insight. I want to acknowledge the member for Chifley as having been a leader in this place when it comes to the embrace of technology, not just in the way a member of parliament can interact with its constituents, and he has a great presence on social media. He has also been a great advocate on the rights of consumers in relation to practices that some of the tech companies have been employing. I want to acknowledge that because he comes to this particular topic with a great deal of credibility—he is not entering the debate at the eleventh hour. I thank him very much for drawing my attention to various provisions that are made at page 290 of budget paper No. 2. The very insightful question does require a comprehensive response. If you will bear with me, Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to go through this in some detail.

The member for Chifley may be aware that in 2008 the Department of Finance and Deregulation conducted a strategic review of Australian government grant programs, which was a significant thing to occur at that time. The review made a total of 26 recommendations to improve efficiency, effectiveness, accountability and transparency in the administration of grant programs across the Commonwealth. That may not sound like a massive development but in the context of the shambolic system that had been in operation prior to that review, these were significant recommendations that were going to advance, in a very comprehensive way, the way in which we open up the processes of government. We all remember regional rorts and grant programs of that sort which were in place under the previous government, where decisions were being taken without a lot of comprehensive consideration, without proper departmental advice, with ministers signing off applications in their own electorates immediately before the government entered caretaker mode—an absolute litany of transgressions. But they were all permitted, subject to the condemnation of the Auditor-General. The member for Mackellar has no doubt read many of the Auditor-General reports which were scathing of the operations of discretionary grants programs under the previous government.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—

The formation of AusGrants, which is what the member alluded to, implements recommendation 12 of the strategic review. Grant programs vary widely in their form, in their scale and in the degree of complexity involved. Members will be interested to note that over 49,000 individual discretionary grants were approved in 2007, not all of them were under the regional awards program, but I am sure a substantial number of them were. That is a large number of discretionary grants. That was under about 250 separate funding programs. Think about it: 49,250 separate funding programs involving a total expenditure of around $4.5 billion. So a substantial amount of money is being expended here and it is only fair and reasonable that that be undertaken in an open and transparent way. On the whole, Commonwealth expenditure on all forms of conditional grants is likely to be between $40 billion and $50 billion annually.

The GrantsLINK system, administered by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, was intended to be a one-stop-shop for community access to information on government grants. However, the system is voluntary and, therefore, does not provide comprehensive information on government grants. That is why we are determined to implement the AusGrant system, which will address a number of these issues by establishing a web based IT system. It will advertise, lodge and report all Australian government grants. It will provide a single point of reference on grants for government agencies and grant applications. The system will leverage off the experience of development and implementation of AusTender. I see that I am running off time. I seek to take further opportunity to answer the member's question— (Time expired)

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

The shadow Treasurer was mentioning rorts. I think he was concerned about a sum of $4.5 million.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order: he was doing no such thing. The member referred to the shadow Treasurer.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

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

Pardon my slip of the tongue. The Assistant Treasurer was complaining about rorts and $4.5 million. I would like to ask him about what is a potential rort of $10 billion of taxpayers' money—that is, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. I trust that the Assistant Treasurer will be across all the fine detail of this corporation.

I will ask him a series of questions. First, can you tell us what benchmark return the government is requiring the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to adopt? Second, I note from estimates that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation will mete out to what are defined by government as 'commercial investments' the sum of $10 billion. I ask the Assistant Treasurer for his definition of 'commercial investment'. Third, because of the inherent risk arising out of the nature of these loans—by its very definition and the way it was established, it is a risky business—one would normally require a return of around 10 per cent. Does the minister consider that to be a reasonable return?

As we are running out of time, I am putting these questions in sequential order and I will recap them for the benefit of the minister. But I would like precise answers to these specific questions. My next question is: is it true that any returns, if any, made by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation are, in fact, not to be returned to taxpayers but simply reinvested in the entity itself? Further, given that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, under its investment mandate, has the scope to make both concessional loans and guarantees—highly unusual if not, dare I say, irregular—is that not a level of risk that taxpayers should not typically be made to carry?

I will recap those so that, with ease, you can answer them individually. What is the benchmark return the government has required the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to adopt? Secondly, what is your definition of a commercial investment? Thirdly, where it is a risky business, which this clearly is, would a return of 10 per cent or more not be a reasonable expectation? Is it a fact that no returns achieved will go back to the taxpayers, instead being returned to the entity? Do you or do you not agree that the investment mandate—being able to make concessional loans and guarantees—means that the taxpayer is carrying a level of risk which is unreasonable? May I please have specific answers to those very specific questions?

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Mackellar for her contribution and note that these issues have been widely canvassed in the course of Senate estimates. But, to the extent that she asked me to comment on these things further, I am be happy to do so.

It is worth reflecting upon the fact that the budget impact of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation was covered in MYEFO 2011-12, which was published back on 29 November 2011. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation Investment Mandate Direction 2013 was subsequently given by the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation on 16 April 2013. In accordance with its investment mandate, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation must apply commercial rigour in assessing all investments. The CEFC must also limit the amount of concessionality it provides in any one financial year to $300 million.

The original budget estimates for the CEFC contained a provision for an up-front write-down of 15 per cent of all new investments under the renewable energy stream. Such investments have the economic substance of grants. Given the commercial expectations now set out in the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's investment mandate, this assumption has been removed from the 2013-14 budget estimates and reflected in the Treasury 2013-14 portfolio budget statement. Given the Clean Energy Finance Corporation measure had been published previously at MYEFO in 2011-12, the impact of the investment mandate is an estimates variation to an already published measure. Further details can be obtained from looking directly at the budget paper.

It is worth noting that these projects that will be funded will very much contribute to this government's commitment to driving investment in renewable clean energy. This has been at the heart of the government's efforts to help us transition from our very considerable dependence upon fossil fuels as a means of generating energy throughout our economy and disconnecting our economic growth path from the previous dependency that we have had on fossil fuels. Certainly the carbon price mechanism has been an important means through which we have been able to deliver that, and I know that significant reductions in overall emissions being generated by energy production have already been yielded in the short time that the carbon price mechanism has been in place.

But we also take the view that it is relevant for targeted investments, obviously, awarded on a basis—

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I could not have been more specific in the questions I asked. They were very specific. I asked: what is the benchmark, what is the definition of commercial investment—

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

The member for Mackellar will please resume her seat.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a matter of public record that the member for Mackellar does not believe that climate change is real, and I note that she does not deny that suggestion. She is one of those members opposite who denies the existence of climate change and man's contribution to it, so it does not surprise me that she would not see the importance of this set of measures.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, I again rise on a point of order. I asked very specific questions and I want very specific answers. If the minister is unable to answer—

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

If the point of order is on relevance, the minister will answer the questions.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must say I am disappointed that the member for Mackellar has sought to absorb so much of my time with her interjections—it has made it very difficult to address the questions she has raised. This government believes in tackling climate change head-on. That is why we have introduced the carbon pricing mechanism and that is why we see appropriately targeted finance as being an important way of addressing this matter. (Time expired)

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

I have a question for the Assistant Treasurer that is in five parts but in one area. The Minister for Finance and the Deregulation put out a release at budget time this year about more funding for the Women on Boards initiative. Can the Assistant Treasurer take me through some of those developments that have occurred in the BoardLinks program over the last few months, and have there been any further appointments of BoardLinks candidates to government boards? Can he tell me a little about the champions that have been put in place to advocate for the network, and what are the next steps with that?

I am continually surprised—I should not be, having been in public life and even in private enterprise for a long time—by the low number of women who end up on boards. When I see all the talented women in the community, I do not understand why they are not on those boards. Why don't they put them on? There is always this debate, and there is a perennial debate about whether or not we have targets. My view is that, if we do not support it through public policy and public mechanisms, it will be another thousand years before women have some sort of equity on boards. It is one of those things that make me continually surprised but not shocked. It would be pleasing to see. It is also one of those things where, unless there is absolute vigilance about it, the numbers may go up but then they can slip back so easily. It is not just a numbers game. It is about equity, it is about talent, it is about inclusion and it is about our society being reflected in our business community. It could even be a reflection of this place, although there is certainly not an equitable distribution of gender here.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Although the minister is outnumbered here.

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

Well, there are four of us here! Good point, Member for Higgins. So it is a bit of a different place. But I would like to know, firstly, Assistant Treasurer, just what information you have to hand about the Women on Boards initiative and where it is at. Also, what are the next steps? Because we have champions, we have mechanisms in place and there is some funding in place, but how do we actually—and I am not saying government is responsible—encourage that in the community? Through the relationships that we have with the community at large and particularly with boards and some of the big corporates, we should make sure that we encourage that equity at every level. As people say, you have to get your own house in order first, and it is important that we all do that and take every step that we possibly can, including choosing female candidates for preselection. I will finish on that point, Minister—on a high note!

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am certainly not getting into that one! I do want to acknowledge that I am outnumbered at the moment in the chamber, but this is not something unusual for me.

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

We accept your acknowledgement, Minister!

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I grew up with three sisters and I have three daughters at home, so I am well and truly accustomed to being in that situation.

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

That is how it is meant to be!

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Page for her question. She is one of the outstanding representatives of this parliament, someone who very actively and effectively represents her local community, and I know that issues such as these are of great significance and great interest to her. Again, I thank her for her question.

The 2013-14 budget continues the Gillard government's commitment to supporting more Australian women into leadership positions, with additional funding of $4.3 million for BoardLinks, which will be over five years from 2011-12. The government established BoardLinks to improve the participation of women on boards because we recognise that improving leadership opportunities for women is fundamental to gender equality, and I can speak from experience in saying that. It is a very ambitious aspiration that we have as a government to deliver on that 40 per cent figure by 2015. It is something that I have always found to be quite challenging in the areas of portfolio responsibility that I have, because in the accounting and tax professions, quite often, we end up with a big list of men's names. That is not to say that there are not a huge number of very effective women out there that could contribute in the form of public service by serving on the various boards and in the positions that we need to fill.

I had the pleasure of appointing Teresa Dyson as the new Chair of the Board of Taxation. Teresa is someone who has impeccable credentials and ticks all of the boxes in terms of the person you would like to put in a position like that. Just to underline how important this position is: our current Commissioner of Taxation was the former Chair of the Board of Taxation—Chris Jordan. We have appointed him—another very good appointment made on merit. But the significance here is that Teresa was a very active, effective contributor on the Board of Taxation. The opportunity to promote her to that position will give her the opportunity to demonstrate the very obvious leadership capabilities that she has.

One of the challenges we have is ascertaining who the potential female candidates are. That is where BoardLinks has been a very effective tool. It is an effective tool which gives us the opportunity to bring together the various resumes and CVs of talented women who would be the sort of potential candidates we might be looking to embrace. That is a very helpful and useful thing—because, while people may not understand this to be the case, there are plenty of occasions where ministers and, through the cabinet process, the government will be looking to appoint individuals to positions and where the government begins with no particular view about who should fill those positions. We want a merit based approach. But, if the only applicants who end up on the briefing which comes up to the minister happen to be males, that is going to reduce the likelihood of having greater female representation. I think this initiative, BoardLinks, really does ensure that women with those capabilities and capacities we will be looking to call upon—to draft for the purposes of public service on the various board we are looking to appoint—are considered.

The member for Mackellar made a comment earlier about the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. That has a board. I did not even have to remind the member for Mackellar. She is very much aware of the commitment this government has made to ensuring that capable, effective women, with all of the talents that their male counterparts have, are given those opportunities to serve in senior positions on government boards. I think it is a great initiative. I thank the member for Page for her ongoing interest in these matters. We look forward to even more appointments of talented and effective women to government boards in the future.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was so thrilled to hear that the Assistant Treasurer is such a strong supporter of female talent and women. I look forward to his contribution in the upcoming ALP preselection in the seat of Batman. I am sure he will have many comments to make about that.

But I digress. I will come back to the specific question I want answered. It relates to the debt ceiling. I refer to table 2 on page 9.7 of Budget Paper No. 1. Under 'Liabilities' it is estimated that government securities—government bonds and gross debt—will hit $321.1 billion in 2013-14 and will reach $370.3 billion in 2016-17. Given the government has a current debt ceiling of $300 billion—and clearly you expect to breach this limit—why was it that the minister and the government did not seek to increase the debt ceiling in this budget, as has been done previously. One can only speculate that it is perhaps to avoid a public debate about the issue and is perhaps a somewhat cynical strategy to leave the government's debt mess to others to clean up.

I also refer the Assistant Treasurer to the government's claims that the budget will return to surplus in 2015-16 and 2016-17. If this is the case, can the minister explain why the government's gross debt is expected to continue rising over this period? On bond issuance and gross debt, we all acknowledge the need to maintain a healthy government bond market. Given that the government initially set the gross debt ceiling at $75 billion, does the minister think, all things being equal, that that is around the ideal level of bond issuance?

Finally, on net debt, which is detailed on page 10.9 of Budget Paper No. 1, I note that in 2014-15 net debt is estimated at $191.5 billion. The following year, 2015-16, it marginally reduces to $191.1 billion. Despite this reduction, the annual interest repayments are increasing by $1.3 billion to $9.1 billion. Can you explain this dramatic increase? Does this not mean that you are expecting interest rates to rise notably over this period?

Turning to table 2 on page 75 of Budget Paper No. 2, in 2013 there is an item $463.9 million for expenditure, decisions taken but not yet announced. At what level are these decisions taken? What is the criteria for them? How is it going to be categorised? Or is it possible that the money is put aside to support decisions that have not yet been taken? The Secretary of the Department of Finance and Deregulation, Mr David Tune, said in Senate estimates last week he expects announcements with regard to these funds to be made before the end of the financial year. Can the minister confirm if that is right?

Finally, is it reasonable to assume these will be announcements made in an election campaign context? For example, is it possible that these funds are tagged grants or even modest infrastructure projects put forward by Labor members?

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for her questions. I think the second one was on behalf of the member for Mackellar. I thank her as well for her contribution.

I welcome the opportunity to talk about debt, not because I think that it is in any way a problem that we face but, if you look right across the advanced economies, our net debt levels are amongst the lowest. It is a point of comparison that is very rarely made by those opposite. Indeed, it is a worthy point of comparison because it makes the point that there is always context. The context here is that we have been through a Global Financial Crisis, a global recession and we are very proud of the fact that here in Australia we avoided sinking into the depths of recession that so many countries ended up encountering.

I know that people often look at what we as participants in the political debate have to say. They will sometimes be cynical—as the member for Higgins is so cynical with so many of her statements. We are combatants in the political debate. Have a look at what some outsiders have had to say about questions of debt. I always think the best place to start is with what the ratings agencies happen to say. The rating agencies have given this government a very big tick, a very big stamp of approval. We have a AAA credit rating with all three major credit ratings agencies across the globe. That is a point that is of some significance. The member for Higgins, I acknowledge, was a contributor on the staff of the former Treasurer and I know he would like to assert he was the world's greatest Treasurer ever—even though he never received that award. One reason why he did not receive the award notwithstanding the valiant efforts of his staff to make him a better contributor was because he never ever achieved the AAA credit rating with all three global ratings agencies.

Ms O'Dwyer interjecting—

He failed to do it.

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

Order! Member for Higgins.

Mr Lyons interjecting—

Order! Member for Bass.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I could understand the member for Higgins' disappointment and that of her former employer. At least now he gets the opportunity to write in News Limited papers and to contribute to the public debate with all of the benefit of hindsight.

I do make the additional point: do not just listen to the ratings agencies. Those opposite talk very much about the mantle of economic responsibility that has been handed down to them from the former Prime Minister John Howard. Indeed I think the current Leader of the Opposition once described himself as the love child of the member for Mackellar and the former Prime Minister John Howard.

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

I promise you it was an immaculate conception.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Deputy Speaker. We have strayed very far from the topic under discussion.

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

Is your point relevance?

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is relevance.

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

Please, Minister, if you could answer the questions.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My head is still spinning from the suggestion by the member for Mackellar that it was an immaculate conception. I think it is regrettable that that is now recorded on the Hansard. Be that as it may, the former member for Bennelong and the former Prime Minister John Howard may not have issued a press release—and I can understand why he would not want to issue a press release that would effectively contradict everything that his colleagues have been saying in this parliament for the last few years—but, in a speech that he gave to what he probably thought was a private audience though someone happened to record the speech, he said that our debt levels are at very low levels. He spoke the truth. Whilst John Howard is prepared to speak the truth, those opposite are prepared to wade and wallow around in mistruths and misinformation and attempts to muddy the very strong economic reputation of this government—a triple A credit rating from all three major ratings agencies, strong growth that is 13 per cent larger than the GFC and almost a million jobs created under our watch. That is our record and we are proud of it.

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

I stand today to ask the Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation a few points about the budget that relate to his portfolio, noting in particular some of the efficiencies savings announced in the recent budget. In the 2013-14 budget, the Gillard government has made $43 billion of responsible and targeted savings over the forward estimates that improve the budget bottom line. These savings improve the sustainability of Australia's public finances and ensure we can make smart investments for the future. They allow us to put in place the nation-building reforms that set Australia up for future success and provide sustainable funding for the National Plan for School Improvement and disability care. These reforms are very important to Australia's future. We are a government that is forward thinking in its policies in the Labor tradition. Labor is the party of Medicare and the PBS and prides itself of its record of delivering policies that help Australians when they need it most, regardless of their income or their postcode. These savings the government has outlined contribute to returning the budget to surplus over the forward estimates and deliver a sensible pace of fiscal consolidation. I note that this has been achieved despite revenue write downs of around $60 billion over four years since the 2012-13 mid-year economic and fiscal outlook.

I thank the minister for recently visiting my electorate of Bass, where he met with local businesses in northern Tasmania. It is evident that the Assistant Treasurer understands the needs of the business community, and I know that the people in my electorate who spoke with Minister Bradbury during his visit appreciated hearing his thoughts on the 2013-14 budget.

It is my understanding that improving the efficiency of the Australian public service will deliver around $600 million in savings over the next four years. And, for the second year in a row, the budget shows a small decrease in the number of core public servants, not including military reservists and ASIO. Since December 2007, the Labor government has achieved over $14 billion in public sector efficiencies and better government practices. I understand that we have driven efficiency reforms across government, including in travel, advertising, property management and IT. So, to start with, Assistant Treasurer, can you take me through the details of the cross-portfolio savings in the public service efficiencies measure? Can you also take me through some of the changes that were made in last year's MYEFO? Have you seen a reduction in some areas, like travel, as a result of these changes? What new measures have been included in this year's budget that will help contribute towards these targeted savings? I also understand the government has also released a document outlining all the efficiencies found in the public service to date—$13 billion at July last year.

Has there been an increase in the efficiencies found? If so, can you give me the new quantum of savings found? I know the Gillard government greatly values the work of the Public Service. As a Labor government, we know the decisions that could result in staff reductions are decisions that should not be made lightly. A Liberal government cannot make the same promise. Unlike the Liberals, we believe a strong Public Service is essential to support the community and to deliver critical government programs and schemes. I would appreciate your thoughts on efficiencies in the Public Service and on other points I have raised briefly this evening.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Bass for his questions. I acknowledge that it was a pleasure to visit his electorate recently and to talk to some local businesses about the importance of this budget and what it is delivering for people in northern Tasmania. The member asked me questions in relation to various government efficiencies. I appreciate that we are running out of time for this session, so I will begin by talking about one area that is of great interest to the member for Bass and to many members on this side—that is, government advertising, where we have been reining in some of the excesses that existed under the previous government. I know the member for Mackellar has been intimately involved in a number of these matters through the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. I suspect, like many other members opposite, she is probably a bit of a Joe Cocker fan, back from the old days when they were 'unchaining our heart', when they were trying to lumber small businesses with the great regulatory burden of the GST chain, but the amount of money they were wasting on government advertising back in those times really was obscene.

By way of comparison, if you have a look in 2007 you see that $254 million worth of taxpayers' dollars were expended on government advertising. This is post Joe Cocker. I would be suggesting that the then government were having a Joe Cocker—$254 million! By way of comparison, in calendar year 2012, for example, $111.9 million was spent. There are areas where it is of vital importance that various legitimate forms of advertising occur, such as informing the public about their rights, entitlements and obligations; census campaigns; Defence Force recruiting; health campaigns; obesity and illicit drugs; digital switchover campaigns; areas where it is fundamentally important that we make sure the community are aware of their rights and obligations and also of the opportunities to take advantage of some of these initiatives. This is just one area. In many areas we have been trimming and pruning government expenditure: telepresence activity, reducing air travel costs and a range of things to ensure that we are extracting as much efficiency as possible from government and its operations because we know that every extra dollar we save in that regard is an extra dollar we can spend on the important investments this government is determined to make, investments in this budget which involve putting in place for the future a national disability insurance scheme, DisabilityCare, and the reforms that will build an economic platform by extending educational opportunity to all Australians, by having a decent education system which gives kids from all sorts of backgrounds and all parts of this country the opportunity to realise their potential and to make the sort of contribution to the community which they are capable of.

In relation to other areas of important savings, better management of Commonwealth ICT has saved more than $2 billion—an important area of savings. More effective management of Commonwealth property has saved $1.2 billion. I have referred of course to the dramatic reduction in advertising expenditure, which is so important. There have also been savings in air travel, a reduction in printing and publication costs and efficiencies in relation to consultancies and contractors.

The whole of Australian government air travel arrangements for 2012-13 half-year results, which were released in April—they alone show that, compared with the same period last year, the amount spent by government agencies on travel has decreased by $54 million. That is a 22 per cent reduction, down to $193 million. The volume of air travel has also decreased by 17 per cent—significant reductions, significant savings, liberating more funds for vital investments. (Time expired)

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

I ask that the questions I asked at the beginning of this session, which the minister failed to answer, be taken on notice and the answers provided to me.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for her questions. I have nothing to add to the earlier answers I provided.

Proposed expenditures agreed to.

Attorney-General's

Proposed expenditure, $3,861,134,000

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This budget creates a fairer, smarter nation. Within the Attorney-General's portfolio, I am making sure that our expenditure gives all Australians a fair go under the law. From the royal commission to legal aid, community legal centres, new judges for the Federal Court through to national security, Labor is building a fairer, smarter and safer country.

We have established the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. We are supporting victims with legal assistance and counselling. In total, this is a $434.1 million investment in justice for our community. We will invest an additional $42 million from 2013-14 to 2014-15 in legal aid and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal assistance. For legal aid, there is a more than seven per cent increase per year. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal assistance, this is an 8.75 per cent increase per year.

We will invest an additional $10.3 million over four years in community legal centres. This is an eight per cent increase in funding per year. This will give more families a fair go under the law. The contribution of Australia's community legal centres to creating a fairer society should not be underestimated. For many people in need, literally walking in off the street, they are the first point of contact. The deeply committed staff and lawyers, who are among our best legal brains, are an asset to our justice system. We are proud to support them. I query whether a Liberal government would support legal assistance in the same way. The Howard government savagely cut the sector and Liberal state governments are busy cutting funding and putting gag orders on community legal centres. I fear we will see the same behaviour from the Leader of the Opposition and Senator Brandis should they ever get the chance.

We will provide $10.8 million for three additional judges in the Federal Court of Australia. We are going to invest $3.8 million over four years for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to conduct a fair and independent merits review of the national disability insurance scheme. In addition, Labor will exempt independent children's lawyers from certain court fees.

One of the Gillard government's key priorities is the protection of the safety and security of our citizens and our national interests. That is why this budget includes $562.1 million for key measures relating to border control, national security and international aid and peacekeeping priorities. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation will receive an increase of $32.3 million from 1 July—a 10 per cent rise in funding. Since coming to government, we have increased funding for ASIO from $291 million in 2007-08 to $369 million in 2013-14. That represents a 27 per cent funding increase since 2007-08. Over the same period the average staffing level for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation has increased from 1,349 to 1,778—a 32 per cent increase.

We are investing in our security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Overall, the government has invested around $18 billion from 2008-09 to 2013-14 on national security measures within my portfolio. Last week we saw the Liberals use national security as a political plaything. They would cut $70 billion from the budget, but they have not said where these savings will come from. Australians want to know whether these cuts will jeopardise their national security, and this is a very serious matter given that various of those on the opposition front bench have said they would cut Public Service jobs—sometimes it is 14,000 Public Service jobs, sometimes it is 12,000 Public Service jobs, and sometimes it is the whole of the alleged increase of 20,000 jobs in the public sector. When you look at where those jobs have increased—because that is the way in which it is sometimes put by the opposition—the approximately 20,000 jobs that have increased right across the public sector are not Australian Public Service jobs; they are Defence and security jobs. I take that threat to cut jobs to be a threat to cut from the security area.

Only Labor can deliver a budget which makes Australia stronger, fairer and safer.

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

I address my questions to the Minister for Home Affairs. I am sure this was designed by the parliament to be an accountability exercise, but it strikes me as being a bit of a farce at the moment.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is because of you.

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

That is a very interesting interjection from the Attorney-General, but I suspect it has been made this way by a government that does not seem to appreciate scrutiny. My questions are for the Minister for Home Affairs. I ask about the evidence that the Australian Federal Police provided to estimates last week, particularly in light of the fact that Fairfax papers are running a story today that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship refuted what the AFP said to estimates.

What the AFP said to estimates was quite definitive in relation to the Egyptian terrorist who had been held in Inverbrackie and their inquiries in relation to him. I am sure the minister will be aware that ASIO confirmed that they had informed the department of Immigration that they had positively identified him on 30 August. It appears that the Australian Federal Police were doing a parallel investigation. It strikes me as slightly strange that ASIO and the AFP would not have liaised about this matter, but there does not seem to be any evidence that either agency was aware that the other was conducting an inquiry. The AFP gave evidence to estimates which said that they notified DIAC of exactly the same information that they had positively identified this individual on 14 November.

Fairfax News ran a report today to say that DIAC rejected that. DIAC said that they were not notified by the police, as stated in estimates, until February. In fairness, the AFP evidence is on the record in estimates and the counterpoint to that is through the media, so I am asking the minister if he would not mind providing some illumination into that particular issue. When did the AFP notify DIAC? Was it on 14 November as they suggested?

I also ask the minister to answer the question about when he was notified by the Australian Federal Police about the presence of a dangerous terrorist within Inverbrackie, and whether he made any recommendations as to how this individual should be dealt with, particularly how we should fulfil our international obligations in relation to the Interpol Red Notice that had been issued about this individual, and whether there is anything further he might care to add about what is a significant national security issue.

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

I thank the shadow minister for his question. National security is the top priority of any national government. So it should be, and so it is. Our law enforcement agencies, be they the Australian Federal Police, Customs and Border Protection, ASIS, ASIO or the work that DIAC do, are very important, and they do a very good job. I have been briefed by the Australian Federal Police on this matter. I was first briefed on this matter in May of this year. In answer to your second question, that is when I was provided with that information. Your first question asked when did the Australian Federal Police provide that information to DIAC and that information was provided by the Australian Federal Police in answer to a question in estimates last week. They indicated at that time that it was 14 November and I believe that information to be correct.

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

I am very pleased this evening to be able to put some questions to the Attorney-General and the Minister for Emergency Management and later, if time allows, to the Minister for Home Affairs and Justice. Turning to the Attorney-General's portfolio, I know that there are a number of legal services that currently assist residents in and around La Trobe. They are the Eastern Community Legal Service, the Peninsula Community Legal Service and the Casey-Cardinia Community Legal Service. Each of those services does absolutely marvellous work in and around the La Trobe electorate. The assistance those services provide goes to access to justice for a whole range of people who typically are amongst the most vulnerable in our society. Like so many in this place, I have worked as a volunteer solicitor for two community legal services and I know that they do extraordinary work. They make all of their resources go that extra mile and they are not averse to trying to bring in expertise from a range of areas. They are very nimble and do their very best to assist a host of different people—the elderly, children who are at risk, those with limited English skills, people of low socio-economic backgrounds, Indigenous people, people facing mental illness, people facing disability. They really do extraordinary work. Before getting to the questions, I want to put on record my admiration for those three services that assist in my region and surrounding electorates.

There are a few questions I would like to ask this evening in relation to Community Legal Centres, but also in the same vein of access to justice—and I know that the Attorney-General, like his predecessors in this government, has focused very much on putting practical measures into place to ensure better access to justice for so many vulnerable people in our society. This follows on in the tradition of the Whitlam government, and successive Labor governments, of making a huge endeavour to initiate legal aid for people in need of assistance in 1973. Some decades on, it falls to another Labor government to sustain a system which was, as we all know very well on this side of the House, gravely undermined during the Howard government's term of office. Indeed, it was in 1997 that the savage cuts to legal aid were embarked upon by the Howard government and, while that seems like a long time ago, those savage cuts sustained incredible damage to the legal aid system in Australia and it has been left to subsequent Labor governments to restore the funding progressively to legal aid to ensure that people are provided with the legal aid and access to the justice safety net that we as Labor people support in the context of so many social reforms.

I note in the Attorney-General's introductory remarks that a good deal has been done even in the context of this budget of tight financial circumstances to focus once again financial measures which assist in providing access to justice. I know that this builds on the work that was done in 2010 by former Attorney-General Robert McClelland in terms of providing additional funds in that area. So I would ask the Attorney-General, firstly in relation to community legal centres, how broadly they will benefit from this year's budget and why he feels that this is particularly important to our local communities, as I do. In addition, I know that the Attorney has spoken about increases to funding for legal aid through this year's budget. I wonder if he could remark on the impacts that he expects that will have in terms of families and individuals, such as those in my electorate who need access to justice and getting a fair go.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for La Trobe for her question. I know of her very longstanding interest in the legal assistance sector through her own work as a lawyer. Access to justice for every single Australian is for Labor a non-negotiable feature of our democracy. Only with decent legal assistance can we ensure that there is access which is truly available to everyone in this country. Without it our legal system cannot look after those who often need the most help: the sick, the elderly, our Indigenous communities, families and children in crisis.

Deep and savage cuts by the Howard government cut legal aid to its bare bones. That government then chronically underfunded the system, while demand for legal services grew. It created long-lasting damage to the whole of the sector. Liberal state governments in more recent times have made the situation worse, with 1950s law and order regimes where resources are devoted to rounding up the accused but those resources are not allowed to extend to funding their day in court.

In this year's budget, as the member for La Trobe rightly mentioned in her question, Labor is continuing the long haul of repairing and rebuilding legal assistance across our country with an extra $52.3 million for legal aid, community legal centres and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services. Specifically, over the next two years, legal aid commissions will receive an additional $30 million. That is on top of the $420 million already allocated, and it is a 7.15 per cent increase over the two years. Over the next two years Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services will receive a $12 million boost. That is in addition to the $137 million under current funding agreements. Community legal centres will be boosted by $10.3 million over four years. This is in addition to the $32 million in recurrent funding they have received this financial year and $162 million since Labor came to office.

The contribution of the 138 community legal centres funded by the Commonwealth government to creating a fairer society over the last 40 years since they were created under a Labor government, by the great Labor Attorney-General Lionel Murphy, cannot be underestimated. For many people in need, literally coming in off the street, community legal centres are the first point of contact. As I indicated in my introductory remarks, but it bears repeating, the deeply committed staff lawyers and volunteers who work as volunteer lawyers—as well as the volunteer non-lawyers, but I speak of these lawyers in particular—are among the best legal brains in the business. They are an asset to our justice system, and we are very proud to support them.

With the additional funding in this budget, the Commonwealth government's total contribution to the four legal assistance services over the four years, 2013-14 to 2016-17, will be $1.413 billion and our commitment to repairing and rebuilding access to justice will continue. The government is certainly going to continue to receive and consider requests for funding to legal aid and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services following the review of the national partnership agreement which is currently underway, because Labor is about improving access to justice, to improving equity, to giving a fair go to all Australians. These are the hallmarks of a decent society.

To go back again to what the Howard government did, there was a savage cut to legal aid in the 1997 budget. It cut the Commonwealth's contribution to legal aid in half. There is little doubt that a Liberal Party would, again, go back to those cutting practices. We can see that from what the conservative state governments in Queensland and New South Wales have done since they have come to office in terms of their treatment of community legal centres—services such as Redfern Legal Centre, starved of funding, no longer able to provide the vital frontline services that it has been providing in the past, and funding denied to legal services by both the Queensland and New South Wales governments because they have had the temerity to engage these conservative governments in policy debate about law reform issues and, apparently, that is off-limits for legal services. Not under our government, Deputy Speaker.

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

Again, my questions are directed to the Minister for Home Affairs. I want to talk about the Customs budget and, in particular, the effect of the cuts on the Customs budget both in funding and personnel and what services will be reduced by the agency in relation to these cuts.

The minister has previously confirmed at a press conference our figures that the Customs service has been cut by 750 officers since the Labor Party came to office in 2007. I believe that figure to be about 850 in relation to this year's budget. I wonder whether he would care to confirm that figure. That is, if you take the final year of the Howard government, the staffing of Customs and what the staffing in Customs is currently, the loss of officers would be about 850. I think the minister would agree that that is a very significant manpower from an agency that now only has 5,000 officers. Well over 15 per cent of the personnel within that agency has been cut. I would ask the minister to confirm that in his comments.

Secondly, the latest budget figures have revealed an overall reduction in funding for Customs by $61.4 million. Where is this money coming from? There is also a $14 million reduction in funding for the Border Protection and Enforcement program. What aspect of this program has this been taken from?

As I said, there has been a further reduction of 120 staff in this budget. Could the minister illuminate the House on, firstly, where personnel cuts have been taken from in relation to all of the Labor budgets handed down since they came to office and, in particular, the 120 staff members from this budget?

The budget also shows that aerial surveillance has been reduced by a further 11 million square nautical miles each financial year, from 2014-15. Given that we have had an enormous increase in the volume of illegal boat arrivals, particularly in the last two months, does the minister feel that it is sensible to reduce aerial surveillance in the out years? Or is it the fact that within his portfolio areas that they are taking a lead in the same way as Immigration—that is, that they are budgeting within their figures for the forward estimates for a dramatic reduction in illegal boat arrivals? If that is the case, then could the minister highlight to the House the policy prescription that he believes will allow that to happen?

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

There is a lot there, so I will take it step by step. First, it is a little bit rich of the opposition to ask and criticise the government about savings or about cuts when they have to make $70 billion worth of cuts and when they have said themselves that they would reduce the Public Service by 12,000. When they have made the direct criticism of the government, that there has been an increase in the Public Service of 20,000 and when the Leader of the Opposition has said that there are 20,000 people who are not necessary and when those 20,000 people—

Mr Keenan interjecting—

They include federal police officers and they include people in the previous agencies that I administered, members of the Australian Defence Force. So by saying that those 20,000 public servants are not necessary, the opposition is indirectly saying: 'We don't need those federal police officers and we don't need those members of the Australian Defence Force.' Over and above that we know that, when the Howard government came to office, they sacked 30,000 public servants. So the prospect of public servants being sacked could be bigger than 12,000, could be bigger than 20,000—and it could be as many as 30,000. The shadow minister himself has refused to rule out cuts to Customs and Border Protection. He was quizzed about this at the doors last year. He was asked the question four times and he ducked and weaved four times but, eventually, when pressed into a corner, said, 'It's impossible for me to give that guarantee.'

Mr Keenan interjecting—

You did say that at the time. The shadow minister said, 'It is impossible for me to give that guarantee.' The opposition have refused to rule out cuts to Customs. Criticism is made here that the government has reduced staff yet the opposition have refused to rule out about making the same savings themselves.

The budget for Customs and Border Protection is bigger now than it was under the Howard government. The departmental appropriations for Customs in this budget are an additional $12 million. Total net resourcing, as was explained in estimates, is down because Customs is no longer required to pay refunds to cigarette importers for the non-plain packaged tobacco products destroyed as a result of the introduction of tobacco plain packaging policy. Forecasts for these types of refunds are included in Customs total net resourcing.

The budget for passenger facilitation is up, the budget for trade facilitation is up and the budget for civil maritime surveillance and response is also up. All of these areas of the Customs budget are up. And the agency is more successful.

I released the illicit drug data report two weeks ago, which outlines the success of Customs as well the Federal Police have had in seizing more drugs than ever before, specifically in the area of air cargo. It is worth making this point because the shadow minister has been very critical of the work Customs does in the scanning and seizure of illicit goods from air cargo.

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order!

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

These are the statistics: in 2007 when the member for Stirling was a member of the Howard government using untargeted mass screening, Customs detected 870 parcels containing drugs and other prohibited items in the air cargo system. Last financial year, using criminal intelligence and targeting, Customs detected 2,100. So the criticism that is being made by the shadow minister that changes to screening have led to more drugs and more weapons coming into the country are laid clearly here to be false claims by the opposition by the simple fact that the amount of drugs and other contraband being seized by Customs has now more than doubled in air cargo because of the changes we have made and because of the focus on using intelligence.

Mr Keenan interjecting—

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

Order! The member for Stirling has asked his question.

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

The statistics speak for themselves. If you ask any law enforcement officer what is the key to seizing things at the border or seizing them on the street, they will tell you it is criminal intelligence, invest in criminal intelligence. That is why in addition to the other measures in the budget we are funding a $30-million national intelligence targeting centre that has been suggested by Customs and Border Protection and other agencies to fuse together all of the intelligence necessary to make sure that we identify and seize illicit goods attempted to be imported into the country.

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

I would like to ask the Attorney-General a question about a budget item that, quite frankly, a lot of us wish we did not have to have, which is the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse establishment. We know that this royal commission was established at the beginning of this year to inquire into institutional responses to allegations and incidences of child sexual abuse in a variety of institutions. It is unfortunately a very long list of types of institutions that the commissioner said they would be investigating including residential care facilities such as orphanages, all religious organisations and their various entities, even a child care centre, state government child protection agencies, detention centres, Defence Forces, juvenile justice centres. It is a very broad remit.

I think it is doubtful that anyone in the parliament, most unfortunately, is going to end up being in a geographic area that is immune from where some of these incidences have happened. I have turned on the news and had reports of people from institutions in my local area—including ones that I frequent now and did as a child—where people who are in positions of trust and authority have been detained and possibly charged with the most heinous crimes imaginable.

It is quite clear that we do not know how long this inquiry will need to go for, and Justice McClellan has said that there will be about 5,000 people appearing before the commission. I think it is important to reflect on the fact that one of things that people do need is for their story to be told and for them to be heard. That is one of the clear things that have come out of the inquiry announcement so far. Whilst the initial report is due mid next year and the final report by the end of 2015, given there is such a large number of people and such a wide ambit of inquiry, I know that questions have been raised about whether it is possible to meet that. We as the government and, I am sure, all members of this place want to do everything possible to ensure people's voices are heard.

I also happened to have a look at the royal commission website. They have taken and listened to a lot of feedback on their website, and in response I saw that they were trying to improve access for people through a new website. As the website itself says:

Importantly, our new website will have better provisions for Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander people, people with disabilities and people from Non-English speaking backgrounds.

They expect their website to be ready by mid-July this year. So they are even looking at very practical things, like updating their website to maximise accessibility, which is an issue in itself.

I also note that it is quite apparent, given the number of people expected to come forward—and these are conservative estimates—that we do not how long the commission will actually go for. I can understand how that poses its own challenges in terms of funding, but this process has been established and it needs to be properly resourced so that the terms of reference of the inquiry are not compromised.

My question to the Attorney-General is: could you please update us on funding for the royal commission, including the total funding, and how this is going to help victims get a fair go and fair hearing. Importantly, can you please provide the chamber with information on what additional funding has been provided for counselling and community based services as part of this process.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Greenway for her question. I know of her longstanding interest in this area. The member for Greenway is quite right that no geographic area is immune—anywhere in Australia.

I wish we could say that that was the case—that we will meet that deadline—but this has been described as likely to be one of the longest and certainly largest royal commissions or inquiries ever conducted in Australia. But that is because the problem is on such a scale that, as the member for Greenway has rightly said, it has left no part of Australia untouched. Our government is going to do everything that it can to make sure that what has happened to children in the past is never allowed to happen again. That is why the Prime Minister announced late last year this Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. As a government we are committed to making sure that this royal commission has the resources to do its job properly.

The member for Greenway alluded in her question to the fact that we have asked the royal commission to produce its interim report by 30 June next year and to produce its final report, if it can, by the end of 2015. We have invited the royal commission to indicate in that interim report not only any recommendations that it feels able to make on an interim basis but also whether the three years that have been allowed for this inquiry are in fact going to be enough. We asked for an interim report because our view is that the Australian people are entitled to get a progress report, as it were, on the activities of this royal commission.

We already know the scale of it. Again, the member for Greenway mentioned something that the chief royal commissioner has indicated publicly—that some 5,000 preliminary inquiries have been received from people who have indicated that they wish to give evidence before the royal commission or to participate in its processes in some other way.

I can assure colleagues that there is funding in this budget for the operation of the royal commission, in the amount of $434.1 million. That will both fund the royal commission itself and support the survivors of sexual abuse. It is the case also that the Department of Families, Housing, Committee Services and Indigenous Affairs received funding of $37.9 million for the years 2013-14 to 2015-16, in addition to the $7 million appropriated in 2012-13 additional estimates for community-based support services. The total component of that department's royal commission funding is $45 million.

The government has already provided additional support for specialist providers of support services for victims of child abuse following the announcement of the commission. I can indicate that some half a million dollars has been provided to Bravehearts, to Care Leavers Australia Network and to Adults Surviving Child Abuse—all existing organisations—to assist them to meet the increased demand of their services following the announcement of the royal commission. On 13 April an open competitive grants process was announced to ensure survivors and their families who are engaging with the royal commission have access to appropriate community-based support services. Organisations will be funded to deliver specialist services such as counselling, support and case management to individuals and affected family members before, during and after their engagement with the royal commission. That grants process is expected to be completed within weeks.

Funding is based on assumptions that may change during the course of this royal commission, or be refined once the commission commences its full formal hearings. The commission held an initial directions hearing to announce some of its processes back on 3 April, but the full hearings are yet to commence. The work of this commission is clearly a very significant undertaking and its potential workload and required operational funding will be more readily assessed over time. Because those funding requirements may change over the life of the royal commission, since its very inception we have made clear to the royal commission and we make it clear to the Australian community that this government is determined to ensure that the royal commission is adequately resourced.

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

My question to the Attorney-General is a very straightforward one, and I ask that he answer it in a straightforward way. I refer the Attorney-General to the statement made by ASIO Director-General David Irvine in estimates when he stated in relation to security checks on asylum seekers that the process is a very, very light touch. Can the Attorney-General outline what the process is and why the Director-General of ASIO would describe it in such a way?

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very happy to provide a direct answer, as always, to the question of the member for Stirling. To put the question in some context, it is important to note that all irregular maritime arrivals being considered for release into the community, either on a bridging visa or into community detention, are subject to ASIO security checks. These checks are undertaken to identify the visa applicants or visa holders whose entry into or continued stay in Australia may present a risk to national security, and ASIO provides advice to DIAC in respect of security as defined in the ASIO Act. Threats to security can include politically motivated violence, espionage, foreign interference and threats to Australia's territorial and border integrity. ASIO does not provide security advice in respect of criminal matters.

Prior to being placed in community detention or being released into the community on a bridging visa, irregular maritime arrivals undergo a security check against intelligence holdings. Those intelligence holdings would include DIAC and ASIO information on persons of possible national security and criminal interest, Interpol red notices, other identities of interest, and fraudulent and stolen travel documents. Positive matches from the checking process are assessed by DIAC in consultation with other stakeholders to determine if the person's application, entry or ability to remain in Australia should be refused. I mention that just to show the interaction between the security checking done by ASIO and the processes undertaken by DIAC.

Irregular maritime arrivals who are assessed as being owed protection and who are applying for permanent visas are referred to ASIO for a security assessment based on multiple sources of information, including—but not limited to—client entry interviews and protection applications. That assessment can be quite comprehensive and lengthy, depending on the circumstances of the client. It is of course the case—and this is provided for in the ASIO Act—that individuals who are assessed to be a direct or indirect risk to national security are issued with an adverse security assessment.

I know that the opposition are very keen on the work of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. I thought it might be worth reminding members of the comments made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in its report tabled on 27 May. They had occasion, in their report, to look specifically at the process being followed by ASIO in relation to assessments. First of all, they set out what they had said in their 2012 report. In that report, the parliamentary joint committee said:

The Committee takes very seriously the concerns put before it by various refugee and asylum seeker advocacy groups but it also recognises that the job ASIO has is a very difficult one. Therefore, the Committee welcomes the efforts, introduced by ASIO on 1 March 2011, to streamline the process of security assessments in an attempt to clear the backlog and to process future assessments in less time—

and this is the significant part—

The Committee is satisfied that the current regime for visa security assessments is the correct one.

That formed part of a report tabled by the joint committee—a bipartisan report, I might add—on 18 June 2012.

In the report they have just tabled, they repeated that comment from 2012. Then, at paragraph 2.64 of this year's report, tabled on 27 May, they said:

The Committee—

and again I repeat that it is a bipartisan committee—

has received no evidence to cause it to adjust this assessment of the current regime for visa security assessments.

To remind everyone, this is a committee which includes a former Liberal Attorney-General, the member for Berowra, and the present spokesman on legal matters, Senator Brandis.

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

My question is to the Attorney-General. Before I go to the question, I will make reference to two things. First, I acknowledge the great work of the former Attorney-General in instigating the royal commission, now carried on very capably and ably by you, Attorney-General. I particularly wanted to mention the work of one of the commissioners, Bob Atkinson from Queensland, whom I know very well from his former work as a police commissioner.

Second, the member for La Trobe raised an issue about community legal centres. I know that when you, Attorney-General, came with me to the Queensland Women's Legal Service centre in Annerley on a recent visit, we heard time and time again from them about the number of people who were being turned away every night. This is a service which only deals with women and only deals with family law and domestic violence issues. So it is a concern to hear about people turning up at night—some nights up to 10 people—being turned away after making the journey there. That is not to mention those people throughout Queensland—because they do service all of Queensland via some specialised phone hook-ups—who are not able to get through. I know you heard that case, but it was quite distressing. Since they mainly have pro bono lawyers lined up to do their work, and although I recognise the great investment you have made in community legal centres, there are some great opportunities that should be looked at. My question is focused on a broader topic, not just on the people turned away from that women's legal service but more generally.

Not far from here we have a copy of the Magna Carta, which is kept in Parliament House. It is a sign of those great institutions that this parliament and this country have inherited. There are lots of arguments in history about what the Magna Carta represents. Some people say it was the collective speaking of a group of disgruntled barons who were speaking up against King John, like a trade union collective. From there have flowed all these great English institutions, and it officially refers to justice in great detail. We hear time and time again from people coming to our electorate offices of justice being delayed—and we know justice delayed is justice denied—and about justice being unpaid. This is also fast becoming justice denied, because of costs associated with running a case, with getting family law support, even with administrative matters which interfere in so many people's lives. I saw this particularly back in 2011 when I had over 5,100 properties in my electorate with water over their floorboards. I was on a committee with your colleague the member for Blair. Time and time again people said that if they had had support from a legal service—and it did not have to be extensive support, but just good support—they would have had a better chance of getting justice and their case sorted out.

I am sure from your former career you would agree that proper legal representation is an essential part of the adversarial system. We have heard recently of cases being thrown out because of the defendant's inability to have a fair trial because they were representing themselves and were unable to get legal assistance. With this in mind, can you explain how this budget will deliver a fairer go for Australians, especially with the focus of your answer on poorer Australians? How will this budget build a smarter, fairer and safer nation when it comes to justice, as suggested on budget night?

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Morton for his question because, like the member for La Trobe and the member for Greenway, the member for Morton has a past in the legal profession as well as in the teaching profession. I know of his current closeness to a number of community legal centres that serve the people of his electorate. He understands, as does the government, the important role played by community legal centres. That is why government funds 138 community legal centres across the country. That is why in this budget you will see an increase for community legal centres across the country and why in the review of the national partnership that is now taking place close attention is going to be made to the outcomes of that review with a view to continuing the very effective funding that goes to community legal centres to enable them to provide the services they provide to people across Australia.

I say 'effective funding' because what you see at community legal centres is a similar model employed in every single one of them. This model is a core group of paid staff with some paid solicitors and some paid support staff, administrative or financial staff. They are surrounded by volunteers in their legions who come in to assist at those community legal centres. They can be both lawyers and non-lawyers. In addition, there are often links to major firms that provide, as part of the pro bono contribution that they make to the community, the time of their solicitors, who will go and work for some part of each week as part of that firm's pro bono contribution, which is only to be encouraged; it is a growing contribution. So, when I say that it is effective funding, the Commonwealth's dollars here in fact enable the provision of much more extensive and valuable services provided by volunteers and by solicitors from firms large and small.

I have seen this. I have made it my task since I was appointed Attorney-General on 4 February to visit as many community legal centres as I can. I have visited the Gosnells Community Legal Centre in Perth, the Sussex Street Community Legal Service at East Victoria Park in Perth, the Townsville Community Legal Service, the Redfern community legal service, the Fitzroy Legal Service and the Women's Legal Service, which I visited with the member for Moreton in Brisbane. I am going to stop listing, because I have visited others, but those are the ones that spring immediately to mind. In all of those community legal services, what you see is that model of volunteer solicitors working with paid solicitors and paid administrative staff, as well as volunteer administrators and tremendous input from established firms who have understood that, far from community legal services competing with them or taking work away from those established firms, they work together. It is a very fine use of pro bono services for them to send their solicitors down to assist.

It is a real concern to our government that that approach of funding to community legal services—providing as they do services to the underprivileged and people in need right across our communities and right across Australia—is not one which is being taken by conservative state governments. It is with great regret that I have to inform the parliament that, for example, the two Environment Defenders Offices in Queensland have had their state government funding withdrawn, and that the Redfern Legal Centre has advised me that, since the change of government in New South Wales, it has been unsuccessful in a range of tenders for work that it has been doing for several years, including a $175,000 grant that it had been receiving from the New South Wales Department of Fair Trading for financial counselling and credit and debt services. Sadly, it is the case that the New South Wales Department of Family and Community Services will cease to provide funding to the Redfern Legal Centre and the New South Wales Welfare Rights Centre after 30 June. It is a precursor to what we could expect from a Liberal government. If there is to be a Liberal government in our country, it will certainly start to do what it did before, which is to cut funding to community legal centres.

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

Mercifully, this is my last question in this process, I believe.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You said it!

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

Well, the Attorney-General has hardly been scintillating in his five-minute answers. I am not sure who he thinks is actually listening to him.

An honourable member: Generally speaking, the people of Australia.

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

Excuse me. The member for Stirling will proceed with his question.

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

Thank you—with your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker! My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs, and it relates to his answer earlier on to the first question that I asked him. I would just like to clarify what he told the House—if he would not mind just nodding to see whether this is the case. Then I can go on to a further series of questions. But I just want to clarify that he was talking about May 2013 when he talked about when he had been briefed about the Egyptian terrorist—

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

I don't think my response goes in the Hansard here, because Hansard does not recognise noddings. I was indeed making it clear that it was May 2013.

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

I thank the minister for that. I find that very surprising considering that this was made public in the media in the middle of April this year—I think on 16 April this year. Does he believe that it is acceptable to have been briefed at such a late stage by the Australian Federal Police on such a significant national security issue, considering that clearly the agency had very grave concerns about this individual—otherwise they would not have been pursuing his identity as they have apparently done prior to formally identifying him through their own processes in the middle of November—particularly at a stage when the domestic security agency has also apparently been running a very similar process?

Given the information that he has given the House, I would be interested to know whether he thinks that is acceptable and whether he would normally expect to have been briefed on such a matter well prior to that.

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

I thank the shadow minister for his question, and it is a fair question. What the shadow minister should appreciate, and I think he does, is that there is a separation between operational matters and policy matters. On taking this responsibility as Minister for Home Affairs one of the first things I did was seek advice from the police commissioner about what it was appropriate to be briefed on, and the commissioner made it very clear to me that he did not think it was appropriate to be briefing me as minister on the regular operations of the Australian Federal Police. This is indeed an operational matter between two agencies. The shadows minister's colleague, who is sitting next to him, would be able to attest to this, that on 16 April we were somewhere between Wau and Salamoa trekking the Black Cap Track, and on my return to Australia I sought a briefing on this matter. I have identified for the shadow minister that I received that briefing. That briefing provided me with the information which the Australian Federal Police have subsequently advised the House on in the forms of estimates last week.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be very brief. I do not need a response from the Attorney-General, I just need his ear. We were talking about community legal services and I think that he would realise that his learned colleague Mr Andrew Giles, who I am sure will have a great interest in Scullin after the next election, would ask that I raise the plight of the Whittlesea Community Legal Service, which is run by Whittlesea Community Connection. I would hope that the Attorney-General is able to keep in mind in his future planning of our community legal services the Whittlesea Community Legal Service.

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

Does the Attorney-General wish to respond?

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to say to the member foe Scullin that the Whittlesea Community Legal Service, as with all community legal services throughout the country, has the attention of the Commonwealth government whether or not it is presently a community legal service that is funded by the Commonwealth government, and there are committee legal services that are not funded at all. It is a sector and we understand that there are many different organisations that make it up, and when we are making decisions about the sector we take into account all of its participants.

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

The question is that the proposed expenditure for the Attorney-General's portfolio be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Immigration and Citizenship

Proposed expenditure, $4,623,769,000.

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

On matters of national security which the minister will be familiar with, I will deal with those first and then we can move on to some of the other matters in relation to the portfolio and the expenditure under the appropriation. When was the department first advised that an individual, an IMA, was being held at the Inverbrackie facility who had an Interpol red notice and was a convicted terrorist from Egypt? When was this minister first advised that a convicted terrorist was being held at the Inverbrackie centre? Thirdly, when was the previous minister advised by this minister's department that a convicted terrorist was being held at the Inverbrackie facility? Can the minister advise whether he had advised the Prime Minister at any time during this period of a convicted terrorist being held at the Inverbrackie detention facility? So I am seeking a response in relation to the chronology of those, and particularly on the first in terms of when the department was advised by the AFP and by ASIO.

The minister may well be familiar with the evidence provided by both ASIO and the AFP, confirmed by ministers prior to him in the earlier session, relating to the Attorney-General and the Minister for Home Affairs. They state that the department was advised of this on 30 August by ASIO and in mid November by the AFP.

More broadly in relation to this issue—and I will try and deal with these in one and then we can move onto the other matters—on the processing of the claim of this individual, the letter that the minister sent to the acting shadow minister for immigration stated that the assessment of the protection claim for these individuals, including the one I referred to, are being progressed by the department. Yet, today, the minister said that he had received advice that their assessment had not proceeded. So, I am just looking for an update as to what is the status of those two issues. Then, more broadly, what is the nature of that assessment?

The minister has been advised by ASIO and the AFP that there is an individual who presents a national security threat. Is the assessment that the department is going through an assessment of the asylum claim, which would be unnecessary in the event that a national security threat is present? Is the minister looking at whether there is a national security threat in relation to this individual? If that is the case, I would assume that no further action would be required on the asylum claim, because the minister would be well aware that the convention provides no obligation on Australia to afford people protection in those circumstances. I would be interested to know what assessment process has been conducted. Is it on the national security issue or is it on the asylum claim issue?

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

I thank the honourable member for his questions, and important questions they are too. Can I go to the question that was asked in relation to a letter written to me as Acting Minister for Immigration and Citizenship by the member for Stirling insofar as issues that go to the assessment or otherwise of three individuals. In relation to this particular matter, the letter to the member for Stirling indicated that progress by the department is being made in accordance with 'the particular circumstances of the three individuals'.

The matter raised in parliament today referred to a particular individual, who is one of the three, who has not yet lodged a valid application for protection and therefore, as I said in the parliament today, has not been assessed. He has not been assessed and there has not been a valid application. To that extent, of course, it is still possible for an individual to make such an application. On the wider question of security, the first thing I note, as I have said before, is that the person in question has been in detention. I was not here for the responses by the Attorney-General or by the Minister for Home Affairs on questions asked of them in relation to this, but there has been, of course, engagement by my department with the Australian Federal Police and with ASIO on this matter for some considerable time.

What I want to do, and I am happy to do so here by way of response to the letter that was written to me sometime this afternoon, is make clear to the honourable member that I am more than willing for the department to brief the honourable member on these matters in relation to the individual in question. They are sensitive issues. The briefing, I think, should be afforded to the shadow minister, the member for Cook, and indeed to the member for Stirling, if that is required. I am advised that the shadow Attorney-General has been briefed twice by ASIO in respect of this matter, but the agencies, that is the department and the Australian Federal Police, have not, until today, been formally requested to brief the opposition. I think it is entirely proper that that occur and I am happy to put that in train in response to the request.

Some questions raised by the member for the Cook should not be answered in full detail. It is for that reason that the shadow Attorney-General asked for a briefing and received two briefings on the matter. I think, for that reason, consistent with the opposition's approach to this matter conducted by the shadow Attorney-General, it would be wise for the honourable member to have a briefing and then, if there are further questions he would ask of me or of agencies, we would certainly assist.

The only caveat I put on any briefing, of course, is that the convention applies that the opposition not disclose sensitive matters. But I do believe that it is entirely proper that the opposition and, indeed, the honourable member who has asked these questions, be afforded the opportunity for such a briefing.

We take national security very seriously. This is an important matter, and it should be dealt with appropriately. I want to assist the opposition. I know—I am sure—that it is the case that the honourable member has a high regard for these agencies, and is not seeking to reflect on them. I would be very happy for him, as I said, to have that briefing to as quickly as practicable in order for him to be across all of these matters.

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

Minister, there are many areas of your portfolio responsibility where there is a yawning gap between the facts and the fears. I would like to spend some time drilling down to some of the facts, particularly in relation to the 457 class of visa.

I know this has been the subject of quite some debate within the community, within the mass media and, indeed, within the parliament over recent months. I am aware that recently the Migration Council of Australia has done some survey work in this area of employers who have had access to the 457 class of visa scheme. I am also aware, and have made myself familiar with, some of the material that has been reported as a result of that survey and other investigations.

I take the view that the vast majority of employers who are accessing the scheme are not rorting it, that they are using it for legitimate labour market shortages—particularly in relation to skill shortages. But I have looked at some of the areas that have been included in the report, particularly the growth in the use of 457 visas in the retail industry and in the hotel industry. Coming from an electorate such as mine, where there is above average unemployment—over seven per cent and higher in some suburbs, and even higher again when it comes to youth unemployment—I find it very difficult to believe that there are not people, particularly young people, who are ready, willing and able to perform some of the jobs that have applied for access to 457-visa workers.

I would be interested in hearing your response to that issue. I know that you have been working on a proposed raft of reforms to the 457-visa category. I would be interested to know whether in putting together those reforms that you have appraised yourself of similar schemes that are operating in other jurisdictions and in other countries, and the nature of those schemes—any reforms that may have been introduced in other countries—and whether we are likely to see similar sorts of reforms introduced as a result of any package of reforms that you might introduce into this parliament?

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

I thank the honourable member for his important question in relation to the temporary skilled stream, the 457 scheme. It is an important scheme.

As the government made clear when we foreshadowed reforms—indeed, when I foreshadowed reforms on 23 February this year—we made clear that this was, to a large extent, a culmination of work that had been undertaken by the department to identify deficiencies in the scheme and to identify abuses that occurred. Most of those cases were not necessarily unlawful or illegal abuses, they were more abuse of the intent of the scheme. By that I mean, of course, that there had not been any demonstrable way to establish whether there were shortages or not before some employers sought labour from overseas without looking within their own communities.

I do not think was really the genesis of the scheme when it was created. I think it was always intended that the scheme would be one to respond to legitimate skill shortages in sectors and regions where they existed. But over time I think there had been a lack of compliance, and for that reason my predecessor, the member for McMahon, received information from the department insofar as options available for reform. With that brief, as an incoming minister, I realised it was important to act on those reforms because I thought it really critical that we get the integrity of this scheme right.

We have a situation where immigration is absolutely vital and critical to this nation's economic, social and cultural success. Immigration has helped build this country. As a migrant, I feel I have been privileged by coming here as a young child with parents who came here to work and to find a place where their children could have opportunities. That is this place. Australia is probably the best example of migration being a success by the diversity and richness of our society, which has been continually enhanced by immigration and that is why to a large extent we have a bipartisan position on immigration levels.

We have a non-discriminatory immigration intake. We also generally have a bipartisan position on the proportion of those permanent migrants who come to reunite families and also the two-thirds that come here via the permanent skill stream. That is important. So too are the other mechanisms we use to provide labour to sectors of our economy whether it is the holiday-maker visa, whether it is the student visa or indeed whether it is the 457 scheme, which is absolutely important. But to maintain confidence in such a scheme, it is absolutely vital that there are sufficient oversights and sufficient things in place to prevent contraventions of the scheme. This is a very important area. What we do not want to see are any improper practices in areas of immigration or in employment law. What we do not want to see is a lack of confidence by the public in such a scheme.

These reforms as advised by the department were very important. The honourable member raises a really important question about what does it mean for prospective employees—that is, young kids who would get jobs in his jobs? What options do workers who may be currently unemployed have available to them?

How do we ensure that we provide the labour that our employees need without intentionally or unintentionally displacing those opportunities? The way we do that is to ensure that the 457 scheme is used when there are genuine shortages. There has been sufficient evidence to suggest that is not the case. As I referred to already, the Migration Council of Australia has indicated that 15 per cent of employers who responded in a survey said they have no problems finding local employees but they do not avail themselves of that opportunity and they go directly to overseas opportunities. We saw also seven per cent of applicants' employment conditions being cut. (Time expired)

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

I had hoped to move to other matters but, given the minister's previous response, I will have to return to this matter of the convicted terrorist. I accept the minister's invitation issued in the House yesterday to have a briefing. I have written to the minister with my colleagues, the shadow Attorney-General and the shadow minister for Customs and Border Protection, requesting a joint briefing from ASIO, the AFP and DIAC in the one room, at the one time so that the current testimony that is out there can be reconciled amongst these three agencies to what actually went on. I accept from the minister that there will be some aspects of that discussion that obviously should be held in privacy. That is why I recommended to the minister that he conduct an independent inquiry into this on his own terms and that it report to him and the Attorney-General.

Given the statement by the Minister for Home Affairs earlier, who was quite happy to tell this parliament when he was advised of these matters—he gave specific dates about that and the process by which he did that—I do not accept the minister's suggestion that we cannot answer the following questions and somehow these are a breach of national security.

When was the department advised by ASIO and the AFP that there was a convicted terrorist being held at the Inverbrackie facility?

When was this minister advised that a convicted terrorist was being held at the Inverbrackie facility? And when was the previous minister advised by the department that a convicted terrorist was being held at the Inverbrackie facility? Did this minister advise the Prime Minister after he became aware that a convicted terrorist was being held at the Inverbrackie detention facility?

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

I thank the honourable member for his question. As I say, I am very happy that the honourable member will take up a briefing on some of those issues. The first time I was briefed on this matter was on 17 April 2013. Also, I am advised that my predecessor, the then minister of immigration, was not briefed on this matter. So the first time the government was advised by the department was on 17 April. In response to the question asked by the honourable member, I make it very clear that we took this briefing very seriously. There is nothing more important than national security for any federal government. As a result of that, immediately after receiving the brief, I had conversations with the department, some of which were very sensitive. That is why I have afforded the opportunity for the honourable member, and indeed his colleagues, to be briefed by my department. I know the letter went to other agencies—I understand that. I do not think there will be any issue about the government providing briefings from all three agencies, although the Australian Federal Police are under the remit and portfolio of the Minister for Home Affairs and ASIO is within the realm of the portfolio of the Attorney-General. We are very happy to do that.

I made the point that ASIO have already briefed the shadow Attorney-General. That is not to say that there cannot be further briefings, with only one condition—the one I have already outlined. I can assure the honourable member that I take this matter most seriously. For that reason, we wanted to make sure that the department were doing everything they possibly could. The secretary to the department had made clear that assessments would be made in relation to the protocols among agencies—something I called for. The secretary to the department was already dealing with that when I responded to the brief and made it clear, in making assessments about the protocols, that you can always continue to improve arrangements among agencies.

I know matters have been raised about the nature of the detention of this person. Indeed, there has been monitoring and surveillance of this person, the details of which I cannot and will not disclose—the member would understand that. All things will be done to ensure the protection of our citizens. That is why I have great confidence that all agencies will do the right thing and will do a professional job in relation to this matter. The secretary to the department will provide me with his assessment once he engages with those agencies, to ensure that everything is being done and will continue to be done in relation to the arrangements for people in detention, ensuring that any risks are mitigated and that any concerns people might have can be allayed.

As I said, I am very happy to arrange the briefing as soon as practicable, ensuring that we get the appropriate officers from all three agencies to brief the opposition when we can.

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

Minister, in an earlier question I asked you about the 457 class of visa, and you may have been cut short in answering that question due to debate time limits. I want to return to that issue and put a question squarely to you: if Australia were to introduce legislation that imposed a requirement on employers who were seeking access to 457 visas to test the local labour market and, if there were local workers who were ready, willing and able to perform those jobs, to offer those jobs to them first. If Australia were to introduce laws such as that, would Australia be the only country around the world, of all those with a similar visa system in operation, which had those sorts of requirements?

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

I thank the member for Throsby for raising the question again. I did digress somewhat, earlier. He raises a very important point, and that is that Australia is not alone in being concerned about temporary worker schemes. Indeed, I can confirm to the honourable member that Canada has quite a similar experience to Australia: very rapid growth in their temporary foreign worker visa scheme and widespread concern that the scheme was being misused to the detriment of Canadians. I am advised that the Canadian response has been to require what is called a 'labour market opinion' before a visa can be issued. Work permits are issued on the basis of that labour market opinion or a confirmation obtained from Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, which is a government agency. Once the labour market opinion is approved, the applicant must apply for a work permit—and I can go to the things that are considered. It is considered whether:

so there has to be a genuine shortage—

You can imagine that last one refers specifically to where an employer seeks to bring in a person from overseas while industrial action is taking place, which is prohibited. I quote the Prime Minister of Canada during question time on 7 May this year—that is how recent it is:

Not only has the government indicated for some time that it would be reforming the temporary foreign workers program, but in the budget last year specifically we brought in measures to better match job vacancies with people who are seeking work or in the employment insurance system—

as we know it, unemployment benefits—

We have been very clear. We need to do a better job of matching the demand for EI and the demand for temporary foreign workers. That is precisely what the government has been doing for a year and a half …

He went on to say:

… the minister brought in changes last year to make sure people who are on EI, employment insurance, get first crack at jobs rather than temporary foreign workers.

That is the Prime Minister of Canada, a conservative prime minister, but one with a high regard for protecting Canadian workers such that he will not allow an important scheme, temporary foreign workers, to displace those Canadian workers. I would also like to quote the Governor of the Bank of Canada, who is currently the Governor-elect of the Bank of England, a very eminent economist and obviously someone who knows something about the Canadian economy. He said:

One doesn't want an overreliance on temporary foreign workers for lower-skilled jobs. Relying too much on temporary employees from abroad distorts wage adjustments that lead to Canadians getting better pay and delays changes that make companies more efficient … The challenge of a skills shortage is not unique to Canada but the solution is training, not bringing in temporary foreign workers.

That was the Governor of the Bank of Canada referring to how a scheme misused or overused will deny opportunities for young people who need training and need to fill those positions and will distort wages—and not in the right way. It will prevent Canadians getting higher wages and also prevent, as he put it, the economy innovating because they will just find the easy option of finding skilled labour off-the-shelf, if you like, leading to other problems. The minister for immigration in Canada has said that there are concerns about examples of the program not being used as intended, and he went on:

… Canadians must always have first crack at jobs in our economy … The temporary foreign worker program was intended to fill acute Labor shortages on a temporary basis only, not to displace Canadian workers.

Hear, hear! I think the Conservative Party in Canada absolutely gets it.

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

In relation to the minister's previous answer, I asked whether he could confirm the evidence given by ASIO and the AFP about the dates the department was provided advice. I note that he has chosen not to confirm those, so I refer to the public evidence that was provided by ASIO that they advised DIAC on 30 August that this individual was a convicted terrorist and on 14 November the AFP advised DIAC that they had a convicted terrorist at the Inverbrackie facility. I note also that the minister said it was on 17 April that he became aware of and was briefed on this matter. I also note that it was on 17 April that the individual was transferred to high security in Villawood.

In that context I would like to know from the minister whether he is satisfied that months and months passed, under him and the previous minister as well, without their being advised that such a significant character, a convicted terrorist, was being held in this low-security facility in Inverbrackie. Neither minister had been advised by the department of his presence in that place. Does the minister think that is satisfactory? I ask that question with this background: the minister would be aware that if there is a critical incident in an immigration detention centre anywhere in the country, his officers advise. It happens as part of the normal process. That is the evidence provided by former secretary Metcalfe to the detention inquiry. It is a normal process for this minister to be advised of critical incidents that take place in a detention centre, but when you have a convicted terrorist staying in a low-security facility he is not told and his predecessor was not told.

One of the very few occasions I had some sympathy for the minister's predecessor was the day he sat before Ray Hadley in a Sydney studio and had to learn that there was an improvised explosive device in a detention centre. That was brought to his attention on air, and he had not been advised by the department. I would have to wonder whether there was a very light touch applied by the department in terms of the disciplinary action that followed that event. What concerns me, on the minister's behalf, is that there seemed to be a tendency to keep this government in the dark on things of that nature. I ask him whether he is satisfied with that.

The budget assumes 13,200 arrivals in 2013-14. We are expecting around 25,000 this year, and I do not think the minister would dispute those figures on the current rate of arrivals. Over the forward estimates the government has projected a decline in arrivals to around 2,400 per annum in 2015-16 and 2016-17 based on the 10-year average figure. I am interested to know whether the minister can state here that he remains confident about those forecasts and that the budget as currently presented is a reliable statement of the expected expenditure given that arrivals are now occurring at a rate of over 3,000 per month and this budget is based on arrivals of 1,100 per month next year.

I also note the evidence given in Senate estimates by the secretary of the Department of Finance and Deregulation, Mr Tune, who, when asked about the government's budget forecast on stopping the boats, he said: ''If it's necessary to adjust, we will.'

I ask the minister: is he confident that, when it comes to the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook, the figures that he, along with the Treasurer, has put in this budget in terms of the likely expenditure for next year and out over the forward estimates will survive that scrutiny through the PEFO process? And does he stand by the fact that he still thinks that we will have an average rate of arrivals next year of 1,100 people per month, based on his policies?

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

Of course, I rely upon agencies, finance agencies and security agencies, as do all governments, to make assessments. What we have made clear is that, if you look at the outer years of the forward estimates, you will see that they are usually considered using a longer period of time of averaging. It is really important to note that, notwithstanding how challenging this area of public policy is, the reason why we have to be guarded and mindful of assuming inclinations—that is, an incline for example in irregular maritime arrivals—is that, between 2010 and 2011, the number of boats actually halved.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 20:06 to 20:39

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

The question is that the proposed expenditure for the Immigration and Citizenship portfolio be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

Proposed expenditure, 1,678,643,000

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

I would like to take the minister to program 3.1 in the portfolio budgets, which relates to Antarctica, science, policy and presence. In particular, I want to deal with the life span for the Aurora Australis. I would like to know: for what period of time is it now expected that the Aurora Australis, or the Antarctic icebreaker, will be capable of performing its duties? Is there a risk that it will no longer be able to do that within the time needed to build a new icebreaker? In particular, why hasn't there been any funding allocated for the construction of a replacement of the Aurora Australis? If the icebreaker is at risk of not being ready in the out-years of the budget, why has there been no money allocated for flights to Antarctica?

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

My question to the minister relates to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Earlier this year the parliament adopted the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I acknowledge the work and the leadership shown by the minister in getting that historic reform through the parliament and in particular getting the plan itself through the parliament as he did. Much of the credit for that goes to the minister, because I know how hard he worked with respect to pulling all the parties together. My question relates to the plan. I ask the minister whether, as result of the plan having been adopted by the parliament, can he update the House as to how the plan is being implemented by each of the parties to the agreement? Have there been any additional measures that have been put in place as a result of the plan?

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

I ask the minister a question in relation to the Antarctic base, which exists in Kingston in Tasmania, and also the stores near the waterfront, which have great significance economically to Tasmania. There is a great amount of science done in Tasmania, around the University of Tasmania and in the Southern Ocean. I ask the minister if he could give us an outline of the pluses in the budget for the Antarctic Division and also ask about the benefits that will flow to Tasmania from that.

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

I will go through the different issues in turn. First of all, the member for Flinders, the shadow minister, asked some questions concerning the Aurora Australis. The Aurora Australis has been successfully supporting our Antarctic program for more than 23 years. The request for proposal process for a new icebreaker is part of our commitment. Obviously, we will get to the point where the Aurora Australis will eventually be retired from service. The request for proposal was released on AusTender. In line with our government procurement guidelines, it was open to any interested party. The Australian industry has every opportunity to be involved in the process.

The request for proposal is non-binding, but it will inform the next stage of the government's consideration of a new ship. Now that that proposal is closed, consideration is being given to industry's proposals, and the government will consider next steps following advice from an expert evaluation panel. We are not going to compromise our commercial contract negotiations by announcing exactly how much money we are willing to spend during those negotiations, which I think goes partly to the forward estimates question that was asked by the member for Flinders. I would not want to be in a situation where we have effectively flagged what our going rate is in the middle of a tender process which is as significant as the acquisition of this particular vessel.

Some work has had to be done to make sure that the icebreaker is able to be in good order while we go through this process. That work is being carried out, and I have received no advice that gives me any doubt as to the seaworthiness or the capacity of the vessel to properly perform its functions in the wake of that additional work being done. You do not need to know how long the vessel is; I can skip all of that.

The current contract with P&O Maritime Services can be extended through to the end of the 2016-17 summer operating season. Around this time would appear to be appropriate for introducing a new ship, but this will depend on decisions that are yet to be made. A $7.9 million life extension and refurbishment program, announced in the 2013-14 Commonwealth budget, will be undertaken between now and 2015 to ensure that the Aurora Australis continues to meet all of Australia's requirements for an icebreaker. If I can—

Mr Hunt interjecting—

I beg your pardon?

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

Flights.

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

Can I come back to the issue of flights later in the discussion. I will get some further information on flights, and I will have a note to be able to give you some more detail on that.

On the issues of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan which have been asked about, I thank the member for those. He had a passionate interest long before he entered the federal parliament that he then continued to pursue in his time as a federal member in making sure that there is a sustainable future for the Murray-Darling Basin and, in particular, a sustainable future for the South Australian end of the Murray-Darling Basin.

I am asked to provide an update on implementation. The final form of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which I am pleased to say received the bipartisan support of the House, is one where we went down what is organisationally a more difficult path. Administratively, it is much simpler if you simply go down a water-purchasing path. Deciding to go down an infrastructure path means that there is a lot more work in program design and making sure that we still deliver and go through the due diligence to ensure that we deliver the actual environmental outcomes and that we do not end up with a situation where infrastructure works are carried out in the name of environmental outcomes and the money goes through but the environmental outcome is not itself delivered. That means that my department has been involved in extensive due diligence conversations and work for a number of projects from the different states. Those projects, I should stress, need to come together, and the states have the perfect incentive to make sure—

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

Order! The minister's time has expired, but the minister may wish to seek the call again. Minister.

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

The states have an incentive to be able to provide good infrastructure projects because the alternative, if they do not, is buyback. That actually builds into the entire process what we would want for implementation.

I believe it will not be long before we are in a position where we have an intergovernmental agreement. I know there has been some criticism from Senator Birmingham about the fact that an intergovernmental agreement is not yet signed, but that is on the basis that somehow the plan hinges on it. It does not. The intergovernmental agreement is a simply the way in which the states carve out the different amounts of money that we have on the table for them and how that is going to be spent. The plan itself has been locked in at law from the moment the disallowance motion was defeated in the parliament—as I say, on bipartisan lines.

As no-one is handing me anything, I will sit down and let the next questions come, but please do not think I have let go the earlier questions that have been asked.

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

I want to return to the issue of the Aurora Australis, the Antarctic icebreaker. Has any money been allocated anywhere in the budget, either within the portfolio statement or in the contingency reserve, to meet the need for a replacement vessel? One will be required, no matter what the price. The reason I ask this is that usual budgetary practice is that if, for reasons of commercial sensitivity, an item is excluded from the portfolio statement during a tender process, provision is made within the contingency reserve. Is it likely, and is it the minister's understanding, that the full amount necessary to replace the Aurora Australis has been budgeted for—at least within the contingency reserve?

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

I have no reason to believe that has not occurred. But those are things which should be covered in the discussion of the finance portfolio's appropriations.

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

Those are matters the minister of the day ought to know about.

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

No, right at the moment we are at that portion of the agenda where we are dealing with the budget papers for this portfolio. I am not going to start answering questions about budget papers for other portfolios.

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

I will ask the minister again: to the best of his knowledge, given that he has just declared he has no knowledge of the contingency reserve, has money been allocated for a replacement—in any form or anywhere—for the Aurora Australis? In addition, I want to refer to Caring for our Country. Budget Paper No. 2, on page 256, indicates that the Caring for our Country program has lost $141.5 million over five years. What sections of the program will bear that loss? What regions will bear that loss? Are there any plans to re-fund the SeaNet program, which by general acclamation has been extremely successful but which is due to run out of funding and which has no sight of further funding as of 30 June?

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

I have been dared again to answer questions which are not on the agenda for this part of the proceedings. I said previously that I am not going to do that and the answer is still that I am not going to do that. Similarly, if I am asked fascinating questions about the health portfolio, I am not going to answer them. I am not going to answer questions about the finance portfolio. But there is an opportunity to ask questions about what is within the budget papers of the environment portfolio. To make sure that we have a straight, factual to-and-fro going, I am, in some cases, delaying some of the answers to make sure that I can provide the highest level of precision possible on the questions that are asked.

On the issue of Caring for our Country, large amounts of Caring for our Country are unallocated in advance. It has been designed as a very high-level program which allows a high level of discretion to the minister of the day to determine how to allocate between different priorities. That means that, when money for different purposes comes out of Caring for our Country, the simple question, 'What are you cutting as a result of doing that?' cannot be simply answered. That is not how the program is run. It is not how it has ever run. That was basically true as well of its precursor, the Natural Heritage Trust. The minister of the day sets a number of priorities—some of them set jointly with the agriculture minister and some of them set personally. The program design allows that opportunity. If it were designed otherwise, it would be the case that, if you take something from here, you have automatically taken it from elsewhere. But that is simply not the way Caring for our Country works.

There was a question from the member for Lyons about our commitment to Antarctica. The additional funding in the budget which has already been referred to in the question from the member for Flinders about the Aurora Australis is extraordinarily important. Planes can get the people in and out, but it is your vessel which gets your supplies in and out and gets your materials in and out. One thing which surprised me a lot when I became the first of our environment ministers to make it out to Casey Station was that most of the people working there are not scientists. Most people working there are working on logistics—and the logistics of just keeping the operation going are extraordinary. Effectively, if you do not have both an air capacity and a sea capacity, you do not have an Antarctic operation.

Additional to that, there was a joint announcement which was made by myself and Craig Emerson, the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research, regarding the continuation of the Cooperative Research Centre. While their work is housed within the education portfolio, there is a very strong interaction with the work that the scientists, who are employed by my department, do within the Australian Antarctic Division. There had been a great deal of doubt for a long time as to whether that would be able to continue, but it does.

The budget also provides $9.5 million to ensure Australia's continued contribution to broad research and Antarctic operations staged from Tasmania, including the running of four fully operational Antarctic and sub-Antarctic stations. Up until this term there has, on many occasions over previous decades, been a view within the government of Australia from each side of politics that we had a number of gateways to the Antarctic, and Fremantle was often referred to as an alternative to Tasmania. My view, very strongly, and I followed this through as minister, is that for Australia Tasmania is the gateway to the Antarctic. Tasmania has the highest concentration of scientists that Australia has anywhere, right there in Hobart. The work, combined with the marine division of my department being based there, means there is a scientific overlap in Hobart and the suburbs surrounding it which is second to none. It ensures that a whole lot of the analysis and experimentation is able to continue on what has been retrieved, monitored and learnt from the work in the field in the Antarctic itself.

In addition to that, a $7.9 million allocation in the budget means we can start to explore options which I have referred to before for the Aurora Australis as it remains available over the next few years. Finally, the Mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook had previously allocated $1.7 million for the development of a detailed business case for new Antarctic shipping capability, including essential associated infrastructure and support.

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

Recently, there have been reports of the Queensland government allowing cattle to graze in conservation areas. I well recall the case in Victoria some two or three years ago where a similar episode was being suggested for the alpine areas of Victoria. At the time, I know that the minister took a very personal and strong interest in the matter. Can the minister provide me with an update as to what is happening in Queensland and whether there are any powers he has that might be able to influence the outcome with respect to the allowing those cattle into those conservation areas?

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 Makin for the question. The issue of degradation of national parks is something for which I hold a passionate personal view. Many national parks when they are first proclaimed will have levels of multiple use. It is not uncommon for stock and even for some logging to be going on in national parks at the time that they are first proclaimed. The rule—which until recently has been observed by both sides of politics—has always been that there would not be backward steps in national parks: that is, grazing once removed would not be restored; logging once concluded would not be resumed. What we have seen from a number of state governments in the last couple of years in particular is a willingness to change that and to view backward environmental steps within national parks to be something that they are willing to countenance.

Most Australians expect that the term 'national parks' is a hint to national involvement. By law, at the moment, it is not. With the Victorian situation my power to intervene was not because it was a national park but because it was heritage listed. The grazing affected the heritage values and that provided the opportunity for me to have the legal power to follow through on what was a view that I also held deeply personally.

The situation in Queensland is not a mirror of that. A number of the national parks have been proclaimed only quite recently. Some of the areas which have been contracted as national reserves systems have not been proclaimed in formal ways at all. But because they are formal grazing properties—and there is nothing wrong with a national park being a formal grazing property; there has been a history of cattle in places like Kakadu that are now viewed as some of our most magnificent parts of Australia—it has meant that the biodiversity values which otherwise might give me specific legal powers are in many ways not currently present in a number of those sites.

The department is still looking through it. There are some places where endangered species are present, and the Queensland government in the first instance had not provided a detailed plan as to exact timing, place, stock levels, so we did not have that sort of information. As far as I know there is more sharing of that information going on now. If it is the case that federal approval is required then I will make those decisions according to the legal powers that I have.

I have a strong level of sympathy for the graziers and pastoralists of Queensland who have reduced their stocking rates, who have prepared for difficult times and who have taken an economic hit as such when they say, 'How come my neighbour gets free adjustment on public land?' It would be very urban view for people to think that there is only one view among cattle owners in Queensland on this issue.

As I say, regardless of personal views on national parks, you have to exercise your powers according to law and according to the legal powers that you have. What we have in Queensland is not a mirror for the powers that existed in Victoria with the alpine grazing issue.

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

I have two questions. The first relates to the issue of the emergency measures in Queensland raised by the member for Makin with regard to the salvation of cattle that would otherwise perish, either through the terrible process of starvation or through a direct shot from a farmer acting humanely. I have met with those farmers in this building, Minister. I have also spoken with the Queensland Minister for National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing. I would respectfully put that the view is quite different on the ground to the one that you have presented.

There is a very real concern of a deep, agonising, inhumane death for many of these animals that are in areas immediately adjacent to national parks or conservation zones that are on the periphery in regional areas. They represent the one hope of preventing these animals from suffering an agonising, slow death from starvation or of farmers having to make the equally agonising personal decision to shoot the animals so that they may lie where they fall. On that basis, does the minister honesty believe that it is a higher environmental purpose to protect one season's grass growth rather than to prevent the extreme suffering of animals that need simply travel a short distance to be on land that until recently was grazing land?

My second question is on quite a different matter. This question is in relation to synthetic greenhouse gas and ozone depleting substances. Can the minister explain how the reductions in funding under the synthetic greenhouse gas and ozone depleting substances component of the budget will operate? What will it mean? How will the issue be addressed?

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

Obviously I cannot accept the framing of the question as do I believe this rather than that in the way that the member for Flinders has sought to frame his question. I suspect this is not a surprise to him. We need to remember that for the cattle experiencing a lack of feed and the stock experiencing a lack of feed in that part of Queensland, national parks are an issue, even if you accept everything the Queensland government says, for very much a minority of stock. We should not pretend for a minute that this issue somehow solves the problem being faced by graziers and pastoralists at a time of drought.

I would also remind the honourable member that during the Federation drought—the longest and deepest drought on memory and on record, depending on your part of the country—and even in all the years of the Howard government, I do not remember anybody actually arguing that national parks were the way to deal with drought. As one of the farmers, graziers or pastoralists,—in different parts of the country they like to use different terms—who was quite angry about other owners of stock being able to get free agistment on public land, commented to me, 'Well, there might be grass there, but there's no water.' We need to be careful that we are not allowing a game to be played, by people who live in cities, that pretends there is a quick answer when the truth is that, even if you do not hold my environmental view about national parks, even if you accept the framework that has been put forward by the Queensland government, it would sell people horrifically short on an answer to the problems that are being faced.

How do I then deal with all of these issues? You deal with them according to the law. It is as simple as that. In relation to the alpine grazing issue in Victoria, if there had not been a national heritage listing for the alpine national parks, I suspect I would have been unable to send the cattle out of the national park. Personally that would have been frustrating, but you make you decisions according to law. While I am asked to answer as though there is a broader executive power, you receive the advice, and decisions under the EPBC Act are highly litigated. Time after time you find yourself in court from one side or the other. I often get asked at interviews, 'How do you feel about someone threatening to take you to court?' Well, part of this job is that people take you to court most days. But you make your decisions according to law and certainly, to date, the courts have backed up the decisions that I have made.

Where does that leave us with the Queensland situation? All I can confirm is that the powers which were available in Victoria are not available in Queensland. At the moment Queensland are going ahead, as far as I understand, with what they had announced. I have a view that it is not the right way to treat a national park. That is my view. I do not believe we take backward steps in national parks. I also find it hard to believe that once the cattle are in the Queensland government will ever provide the money that is required for management of those areas. Wetlands will get trampled and there will be a whole lot of challenges to the environment.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 21:08 to 21:25

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the order for consideration of the proposed expenditures agreed to on Monday, 3 June 2013 by the Federation Chamber be varied by next considering the proposed expenditure for the Resources, Energy and Tourism Portfolio.

Question agreed to.

Resources, Energy and Tourism

Proposed expenditure, $1,041,472,000

It is a good time to be in resources in Australia. It is no accident that Australia has the reputation of being a safe and secure place to invest. With a $400 billion investment in our resources and energy sector over the past decade, the proof is genuinely there for all to see. What is also there for all to see is the tremendous work that has been done by resources ministers in the past. I speak of course not only of my predecessor, Martin Ferguson, but also of his predecessor, Ian Macfarlane. The truth of the resources portfolio in the context of the Australian parliament is that it sits in a special position supported by both sides of politics and supported because of the great wealth that it generates for our country, the great lifestyle it creates in our hinterland and the great jobs that it produces.

The Australian investment pipeline is the largest, most productive investment pipeline of any country the world has ever seen. We still have an estimated $268 billion pipeline of committed capital investment projects in around 73 committed resources and infrastructure projects around the country. Indeed, in the six months to April 2013, 21 projects with a combined capital cost of $15.3 billion were completed.

The numbers are staggering, but what they mean for the future wealth and productivity of our nation is genuinely a matter for interest and for support by our parliament. Not only did this investment pipeline generate jobs in the construction phase of the mines and processing plants but also, when those mines and processing plants reach production phase, they will support hundreds of thousands of jobs in mine services, in mine operations, in minerals processing, in kitchens in mines and in the communities that support the families who work in mines.

This transformed resource economy is an economy that produces not simply wealth for our nation and is not simply the great balancer in our export accounts but genuinely produces life and lifestyles for our community. It pays for mortgages. It trains young men and young women for productive jobs in the future. And the resources sector, singly, of all of the employment sectors in our economy, has done more than any other sector to provide training, jobs and a livelihood for the Indigenous people of our country. On any given mine site on any given day at any given time, we now know that we will find Indigenous workers proudly learning a skill, driving a truck, operating a piece of processing equipment, earning an income and living a lifestyle that 20 years ago some of the great miners of our country could only ever aspire to. That reality is now here and it is here because of the very deep penetration of the new projects we have seen in iron ore, in coal, in nickel, in copper, in uranium, in oil and gas, in sophisticated minerals processing such as magnetite production and sophisticated minerals processing in nickel and copper and in sophisticated minerals processing such as LNG production.

This transformed economy is an economy that, nurtured properly, cared for properly, has the capacity to underwrite the future of our nation. It has the capacity to underwrite the future education of children not yet born and it has the capacity to fund the retirements of people who are currently working. The value of our resources sector to our nation is not simply that stuff is taken out of the ground and put on a boat and sent off to a customer, it is that serious, sophisticated value adding takes place in regional communities and that adds life and vigour to those communities and gives life and vigour to our country. It is impossible to overstate the importance of our resources sector and therefore the budget measures that support it.

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

I ask the minister in his capacity as the Minister for Tourism to reconcile these two facts. On page 159 of Tourism Australia's portfolio budget statements 2013-14, under the line-item revenue from government, the amount listed for 2013-14 is $130.4 million. On page 214 of Tourism Australia's portfolio budget statement 2007-08, which was the final budget of the Howard government, revenue from government is listed at $136.3 million. To show Labor's $6.2 million cut to funding for Tourism Australia I seek leave to table the two documents, being page 159 of the portfolio budget statements for 2013-14 and page 214 of the portfolio budget statements for 2007-08.

Leave granted.

I refer the minister to his media release of 23 May 2013, in which he said that 'funding for Tourism Australia has gone up.' I ask the minister this simple question: is your media release wrong or are the budgeted financial statements you put to the Parliament wrong? You cannot say that funding for Tourism Australia has gone up and then present budget papers to this parliament which show that under Labor funding for Tourism Australia has been slashed by $6.2 million. Which one of your statements is wrong—your media release or your budget papers? I ask the Minister for Tourism to justify Labor's funding cut to Tourism Australia without tricky accounting or laundering the money around the budget.

I would also like the Minister for Tourism to confirm that Tourism Australia has to give back to the department of finance any foreign currency gains greater than one per cent of revenue. I would also like the minister to explain what impact the consumer price index has had on Tourism Australia's purchasing power. Can the minister confirm that in real terms funding for Tourism Australia has dropped by 19 per cent since Labor came to government? How can Labor address these factors by cutting funding for Tourism Australia? Will the minister confirm that under Labor total government spending has gone from $280 billion to $398 billion, and what kind of message does it send to the tourism industry when a government increases its spending by $118 billion only to cut funding for Tourism Australia by $6.2 million? Does the minister agree that on this evidence it appears that while the Gillard government's reckless spending has reached record highs, the cupboard has been bare for the tourism industry.

Can the Minister justify why funding for tourism has been so poorly prioritised by the Rudd-Gillard government? I refer the minister to Labor's 2010 election commitment to spend $10 million each year and $40 million in total on T-Qual grants programs. I draw the minister's attention to page 46 of the portfolio budget statements he has presented to the parliament, and I ask him to confirm that in every year since the 2010 election Labor has spent less than the $10 million it committed to. Will the minister confirm that the Gillard government will deliver less than $25 million of the promised $40 million before the next election?

I refer the minister to Labor's election commitment to give $6 million to the now-abandoned National Long-Term Tourism Strategy. I ask the minister to confirm that his government announced the Long-Term Tourism Strategy on 16 December 2009 and then that it had ceased on 6 December 2011, replaced by Tourism 2020. I ask the minister: does he consider the 721 days this strategy survived as 'long term'? I note a key deliverable listed by the minister's department on page 47 of the portfolio budget statement is:

I therefore ask the minister to explain why his department failed to ensure tourist interests were taken into account when his government increased the passenger movement charge by 45 per cent, hitting inbound tourists with an extra cost on their airfares; introduced the world's biggest carbon tax, which has hit our airlines and our hotels particularly hard and given our overseas competitors a price advantage; and increased tourist visa fees by 53 per cent, placing a further cost burden on tourists? Minister, given these three examples, can you actually name a single policy where tourism interests have been taken into account by this government?

I ask the minister to explain how tourism operators in Australia can have any confidence in Labor's budget, given they will have to pay more tax while Labor increases their business costs and cuts funding for Tourism Australia.

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I used to wonder what a shadow minister for tourism does. Now I know: nothing, absolutely nothing—except sleep. The previous minister for tourism, alone amongst Australian tourism ministers over the last 20 years, succeeded in unifying an industry across our states and a sophisticated industry itself, substantially 90-odd per cent of them small businesses, to grow that industry to today to be in excess of $100 billion in bed nights per year. That growth has been achieved by serious efforts for cooperation between state tourism organisations, Tourism Australia, the federal government and tourism operators. Tourism operators are, as the shadow minister would know, the most delightful, tenacious and energetic small-business people that our country has to offer. Every one of them has a vision that we would share—a vision to provide customers with the best and most enjoyable experience at the best possible price.

We as a federal government rejoice in the opportunity to give these businesses growth, but mostly we work to underpin their business opportunities by ensuring a continuous stream of customers. These days, the growth in our inbound tourism mostly happens as a consequence of insightful decisions made by the federal government to support increased numbers of tourists from our region who come to Australia to enjoy a terrific experience and who support our tourism industry because of the great qualities it offers. In the course of the last two months, I have been getting around tourism businesses, and not once have I heard a person argue for an additional grant, for more funding for this or that good idea. They just want government to support more tourists coming out to Australia—more people, more bed nights, more customers and a better business environment—and, most importantly, to do that with a great degree of certainty.

The Tourism 2020 vision is a vision that aspires to grow our tourism economy to between $120 billion and $140 billion by 2020. That growth will support jobs. Those jobs will be good jobs. Those jobs will be in kitchens, in bars. Those jobs will be in communities that are sustainable and enjoyable, and in businesses that are run by families. And those jobs will be in businesses that will be around for a long time to come.

In this budget we are providing more than $186 million for tourism. Tourism Australia alone will receive $130 million to continue to market Australia as a tourism destination to international and domestic audiences and will also provide additional marketing funding into Asia to attract the new growth stream of customers. That new growth stream comes about because of the extraordinary economic growth in our region. In this the Asian century we know that increased tourism numbers from China in particular will support a specific tourism experience that will, in and of itself, help grow the diversity of our tourism industry and, at the same time, support additional skills and businesses in the growth throughout our region.

We know that the programs we offer, which are supported by Tourism Australia and support the Tourism 2020 Vision, will grow the industry beyond it being simply a political plaything. It grows an industry to the point where its training requirements are taken seriously by the Commonwealth government and by the industry itself. Ensuring good career paths for people who work in our tourism industry is not just something we do incidentally; it is something we do to grow the quality experience in Australian tourism. I will get back to the shadow minister with answers to each question he has asked and I will do that in writing.

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

I come from Queensland, a state not dissimilar to Western Australia—decentralised, growing and resource rich. You only need to go to Curtis Island and Gladstone to see some of the pressures and opportunities there. I also come from a state where there have been significant cuts to TAFEs, which, it is my understanding, has also been the case in Victoria and in New South Wales. The private RTO sector has not traditionally been venturing into providing support in the traditional trades, the ones we particularly associate with the resources sector.

In your introductory remarks you talked about $268 billion of capital commitments. We can see it in Gladstone, we can see it all over Queensland. My question goes to the skill needs of this year, of tomorrow, in five years time and in 10 years time and obviously the balance between the construction and production, and other associated things. I know you have experience in chairing the Northern Australia task force, which has looked at some of this. You have looked at the challenges in mining areas and the support provided to them through regional support centres. In the past I can remember when flying to Canberra or to Sydney looking out to see infrastructure bottlenecks and the challenges they have brought to our economy. Bottlenecks have dragged down productivity. My question is about the skills hand break being applied in Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales by TAFE shutdowns. I know you have spoken publicly about 457 visas and their short-term role, and about regional migration agreements. Obviously our focus is on jobs and opportunities for young Australians. I say that particularly in the light of, historically, of the Xstratas and the like with their long tradition of putting on apprentices in traditional trades. Could you comment on the future challenges?

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question. Training and skills development in the resources sector will be a critical issue for our country over the next decade or so as we move from construction into production. It is the case that in his home state of Queensland we have seen savage cuts to TAFE training which genuinely compromises the capacity of Queensland to meet the skills need in industry in the future. It is a tragedy to see that industries within the resources sector make massive investments in growth opportunities and the state government sees fit to make cuts to training and to TAFE which affect the very capacity of that great resource state to be productive.

It is the reality that for most insightful governments, most insightful Commonwealth governments, the best response to labour and skill shortages is training. The member has quite accurately identified 457 visas as a potential source of skills, but we all know—everyone in our parliament knows—that the best source of skills training is in Australia. We must train our own workers for the future to ensure that Australian mines, Australian resource projects, Australian minerals processing and sophisticated minerals processing is done by well-trained Australians who have been through our TAFE system or our university system and have developed the skills required to support industries into the future.

The resources sector employs over a quarter of a million people. It has grown massively in the course of the last six years. In 2009, the resources sector accounted for fewer than 265,000 employees. Today it accounts for in excess of 260,000 employees. That growth has been not just in labour as such but also in skilled labour and in the categories of labour that add minerals processing and sophisticated mine-site activities, from geotechnical work through to standard trades, electricians, plumbers, gas fitters, kitchen staff, cooks and the like. If we are not turning these people out of our TAFEs in order to join the great workforce in our resource community, then it is genuinely the case that our community will not get the benefit that it could get from the super resource cycle that is currently benefiting our Australian economy.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The question is that the proposed expenditure for the Resources, Energy And Tourism portfolio be agreed to.

Question agreed to.