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

My question relates to the capability of the joint strike fighter. The American Director of Operational Test and Evaluation's report of December 2012 shows that the JSF is more vulnerable to damage than current fighters, thus not meeting its operational requirements document; it shows that the aircraft has significant weight issues and is within 273 pounds of having reached a weight that will impact on performance; and it shows that the aircraft is unable to achieve its acceleration and turn performance thresholds, as predicted by critics but rejected previously by Defence and Lockheed Martin. Given these clear shortcomings of the aircraft, and the facts that the cost has blown out and that the aircraft will achieve its initial operational capability only in 2020 at the earliest and will be overmatched by stealth fighters coming out of Russia and China, why won't the government put the project on hold, put a request for proposal out to tender and hold a competition to find the best contender?

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

I want to apologise for the Minister for Defence, who unfortunately cannot be here because he is hosting the Indian Defence Minister over the next couple of days. In response to your question, we are committed to the purchase of the JSF arriving in 2020 and that is what we are going to do.

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

With respect to the ASPI's detail book and in terms of the Defence budget and the white paper: as you are aware, ASPI has concluded that the federal government has a $33 billion shortfall in its funding for the 2013 white paper. It says:

… in absolute terms funding remains well below what was promised back in 2009. Yet plans for the ADF remain as ambitious as ever.

ASPI also reports that:

Consistent with this, the share of GDP will remain below 1.7% for the next decade.

How exactly does your government expect to afford the equipment procurement set out in the white paper when the budget is continuing to be cut? Also, ASPI has belled the cat: will you now confirm that your goal of returning defence spending to two per cent of GDP is rhetorical, since it is clear from ASPI's analysis that, at best, you will only seek to reach 1.7 per cent of GDP over the next 10 years?

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

I am aware of the ASPI report and, whilst I appreciate the diligence with which the ASPI team have gone about their work, I am afraid we do not agree with their outcomes—isn't that a surprise to you! I do want to make the observation that the opposition effectively shares the same policy towards Defence budgets—and for that I thank them. I know that we share a commitment to ensuring that we develop the defence capability, as we have decided to do.

Let me just make some observations about the calculation of the $33 billion shortfall, which assumes a three per cent growth in the Defence budget from 2008-09 to 2017-18 and a 2.2 per cent real growth beyond. Unfortunately this fails to take into account that, when the new funding model for Defence was announced in the 2009-10 white paper, there were deferrals and reprogramming of funding in the early years that were publicly announced in the 2009-10 budget. Additionally, the three per cent growth predicted was never three per cent constant annual growth, but rather an average growth rate over a longer period of time. In the 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 budgets, there were expenditure reductions applied to the Defence budget totalling $8.9 billion over the period 2010-11 to 2020-21 as detailed in Defence's portfolio budget statements.

Could I also refer further to whether or not the Defence budget has been cut over the decade. The white paper announced that government had decided the Defence funding model would be based on the four-year forward estimates budget cycle, determined on an annual basis and taking into account contemporary strategic, economic and fiscal circumstances. That, I think, is surely understood by everyone. This aligns Defence funding with the Commonwealth's broader budget process. It provides certainty for planning in the short term but recognises the difficulty in forecasting fiscal circumstances in the longer term—which, as we know, is an art which is not perfect.

The Defence budget for 2013-14 is $25.3 billion. This, as we also know, is $1.1 billion higher than the 2012-13 budget of $24.2 billion. This will grow to $30.7 billion by 2016-17. The government will provide Defence with $113 billion across the budget and forward estimates. This compares to $103 billion in the 2012-13 budget and forward estimates, or a $10 billion increase over the four-year period. In dollar terms, this is more than has ever been spent before on defence, and that, I am sure, is well appreciated.

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

But every budget spends more on everything.

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

No, it does not.

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

It does so.

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

No.

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

Order! There is a lot of discussion between the two benches opposite each other. Everything is through the chair.

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

We could just have a—I am sorry.

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

Well, you could, but I will not allow it, so you will direct all your questions and answers through the chair.

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

You're a hard bugger! But let me just say I appreciate the way in which the opposition shadow minister is carrying himself, and I do not particularly mind his interjections.

Mr Robert interjecting —

But through the chair—absolutely. The government, as we said, have spent more than ever before. The government also provide Defence with six years of general guidance beyond the forward estimates for planning purposes. This obviously concedes that attempting to provide tens of—I do not know what we are doing, but people are escaping—years of funding with precision is extremely difficult given the volatility in the world economy and government revenue forecasts. This budget, the government will provide Defence guidance of over $220 billion. Together, these amount to approximately $333 billion. So we are obviously committed, as you well know, to increasing the Defence budget funding towards a target of two per cent of GDP as and when fiscal circumstances allow, and I think that is broadly consistent with the view of the opposition. It is a long-term objective that will be implemented in an economically responsible way as and when fiscal circumstances allow.

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

The minister has taken spinning to a twirling dervish level, can I just say. Minister, despite the eloquent words, there is no escaping $25 billion in cumulative cuts to the Defence budget over the last five years, and there is no escaping cuts as a proportion of GDP, where defence expenditure is at the lowest level since 1938. No level of fiscal means and new budget process can escape that.

I draw your attention, sir, to the white paper and the resultant budget documents that look at the purchase of the 12 EA18G Growlers. The cost of acquiring the Growler, as per the white paper and the budget documents, is $2.974 billion, yet the budget paper makes it very clear that the only allocation of funds for that is $200 million in 2014-15. The budget also makes it expressly clear that the remainder—$2.774 billion—is to be met from within Defence's existing resources, with outlays out to 2012-22. It is page 288, for your staff rapidly searching their documents behind you. Existing resources—that is an absorption, Minister, of $2.774 billion. In your world, absorption is just one of those economic terms. Where I come from, absorption is a cut, because if you have to absorb $2.77 billion then you have to cut something else, because that is the way you absorb something. So, Minister, where will those cuts come from to allow the absorption of $2.774 billion for Growler?

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

I am surprised at the cynicism and even the sarcasm at times—to think that we would not do the right thing! As announced as part of the 2013 white paper, the government, as you well know, has decided to acquire the 12 new-build EA18G Growler electronic attack aircraft instead of—and I think this is far preferable in any event—converting Australia's 12 existing FA18F Super Hornet aircraft into the Growler configuration. These 12 Growler aircraft will enhance significantly, as I am sure you will agree, the ADF's electronic warfare capability and, together with the JSF and the Super Hornet will form a formidable air combat force capable of controlling both air and electronic environments. I think it is really important that we appreciate what we are getting here in terms of capability.

These additional 12 aircraft will cost approximately $2.9 billion. Offsetting this cost is the $1.5 billion already committed in the Defence Capability Program to convert 12 of Australia's existing FA18F Super Hornet aircraft into the Growler configuration. That which will no longer go ahead, so there is a saving which will be redirected towards the acquisition of the Growler. The government will also provide Defence with an additional $200 million towards this purchase in 2014-15. The remaining funding will be found through adjustments to the priority activities across Defence, which you have alluded to, including proposed capability acquisitions.

You would appreciate the way we estimate the costs of these things and then ultimately fund them. The details will be provided in the next Defence Capability Plan, which will be published before the end of the 2012-13 financial year. I can assure the shadow minister that we really understand the financial costs of doing this business and managing the costs within the budgeted framework that we have set for Defence.

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

For the sake of putting a senatorial hat on and seeking a supplementary in the same space: Minister, in answering the question 'Where well the extra $2.77 billion come from that has to be absorbed?' you indicated that $1.5 billion will be redirected to the DCP, which was going to be used for conversion, and for the rest will just have to wait and see and trust the government. Frankly, that is hilarious considering the $25 billion worth of cuts. But let us just park that to one side. The $1.5 billion in the DCP that was previously committed for the conversion, which you are now looking to redirect, was never actually committed in real terms but was always to be absorbed within the DCP. It was never actually committed. Minister, can you point to me exactly where that $1.5 billion was committed?

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

With great respect to my friend in the opposition, the figures were provided for in the Defence budget. That is clear. I am not sure what the problem is. The money has been identified, it is there and it will be allocated for this purpose.

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

Minister, the money is not allocated. The $1.5 billion that you are referring to from the previous announcement for the conversion of Super Hornets into Growlers was announced as an absorption. You have just said to the House that that $1.5 billion absorption will be redirected to meet the current absorption. Absorption plus absorption still equals absorption, unless you can find some other way to find $1.5 billion.

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

Since I was elected in 2010 I have spent quite a bit of time on the Defence Subcommittee with my colleagues here. We have been researching and inquiring into the mental health of those in the ADF, particularly those soldiers who are returning from deployments overseas. We have had extensive consultations throughout the country, with agencies including the Defence Community Organisation, Defence Families of Australia, RSL and Soldier On—a range of organisations who have highlighted a number of gaps in the system, particularly between DVA and Defence in terms of those agencies talking to each other, in terms of getting a seamless approach to the management of mental health and of those who return injured from deployment overseas.

I have three questions for the minister. The first is, what does the latest research into mental health issues associated with military service show us? Secondly, what is the government doing for the mental health of our current and former service people? Finally, what is the government's estimates of the future numbers of service personnel who have been engaged in operational activities over an extended period who may have mental health problems arising from these activities?

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

I thank my friend the member for Canberra for her questions. As she would know, and I am sure the opposition would agree, during my time as Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and Minister for Veterans' Affairs our absolute concern has been that in the past we have not really appreciated the extent of mental issues both in the defence community, current serving men and women, and also in the veteran community. That is why we had the Dunt review and all that flowed from it, why we have massive new expenditure into mental health in the Defence Force and why we did a suicide study in the veteran community. I think it is agreed across the board that there is no doubt that we are committed and Defence is committed to promoting good health but also, most particularly, good mental health.

Since 1999—these figures are quite illuminating—more than 65,000 ADF personnel have been deployed overseas and nearly 38,000 of those have deployed more than once. In the Navy, 10 per cent have deployed four times or more, and marine technicians feature very prominently. In the Army, seven per cent have deployed four times or more, with the Special Air Services and commandos featuring prominently. Some of those have done a large number of rotations. In the Air Force, eight per cent have deployed four times or more, with airborne electronics analysts and air combat officers featuring prominently. I have met a lot of these characters—they are wonderful people who have committed themselves significantly to years overseas, once you combine their service.

Recent research undertaken by the Centre for Traumatic Stress Studies at the University of Adelaide indicates that we can expect to see a minimum rate of personnel with diagnosable mental disorder of 22 per cent in a 12-month period. That 22 per cent is comparable with the general Australian community. Estimates of the prevalence of mental disorder, including PTSD, anxiety and depression, as well as alcohol issues, does not equate to the number of personnel who will actually seek help. The research also shows that only half of those with a mental health disorder will seek treatment in the next two years. That is an issue for us. Although the rate of those seeking help may increase, it is likely that this will occur at a gradual pace. We believe that there will be a rising tide of people seeking assistance and requiring help rather than the tsunami that people have been referring to. This research is supported by Dr Graeme Killer, the DVA Principal Medical Adviser.

We are confident that our efforts to educate and encourage our people to seek help as early as possible may also have an effect in increasing the number of those seeking treatment who require it. The whole question of resilience, of people understanding that it is okay to actually report a mental health illness or issue, is something which we have had to really drive hard. I want to pay tribute to the former Chief of the Defence Force, the current leader of the Defence Force, the previous service chiefs and the current service chiefs for their leadership in this regard. They have made very clear their expectations and the obligations of those in command positions to ensure that those beneath them are fully appraised of what they should do and have an awareness of the issues involved.

We are interested in supporting all of our personnel, no matter the source or cause of their mental health problems. Defence has improved its resilience training, screening, post-deployment reintegration activities, and treatment and rehabilitation programs to ensure our servicing men and women are supported throughout their careers. I will sit down in a moment, but I do want to say some more about this because the elements of this year's budget which deal directly with our response to mental health are quite important. It goes not only to serving personnel but also their families.

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

Minister, thank you for the update in terms of mental health and wellbeing of our service personnel for which you enjoy the coalition's strongest and widest bipartisan support. Can I just move back on to the rural budget since these are a form of budget estimates, albeit in the House? Minister, I think we have ascertained that the $2.77 billion is to be absorbed. I think we have ascertained that the government does not know where that is coming from and your comments as to the details will be advised. I think that says it all.

We will all just wait and see. Somehow, Minister, I think you and I could put $5 down that you would not advise prior to parliament being prorogued but we will wait and see. Apart from the $2.77 billion being absorbed, it is my melancholy duty to inform you—and indeed the House—that you have also asked Defence to absorb another $150 million in other costs according to the PBS documents. These include the Defence abuse reparation payments, Operation Resolute costs—that is the cost of the Navy taxi service for asylum seekers—and security for the G20 leader summit. The list goes on.

Without making any comment on what the money is used for—and that is not my intent—I am simply putting out that $150 million worth of costs have to be absorbed again. Minister, can you please outline where these costs will be absorbed—that is, what part of Defence will have to be cut in terms of the budget? Are we are talking about personnel travel? Are we mothballing equipment? Are we pushing some elements of the DCP out? What exactly is being moved, absorbed or cut to make way for this $150 million in a range of areas I have outlined?

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

I thank the honourable member opposite for his question. Of course, he would realise that we have the capability to get enhanced efficiencies out of this very large organisation and we intend to do so. As well as that, we know and he knows that the way this system works is that there is often quite a continuous reprioritisation of projects. We will do that on a continuing basis to meet our obligations and to ensure that we have the capability that is required for the Australian Defence Force and understand that that commitment goes not only to the capability in terms of equipment but also for investments through our personnel. I have no doubt at all that we will meet our obligations in both parts in terms of the capability development and deployment of our assets, as well as our investment into our Defence personnel.

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

Minister, in answer to the last two questions in terms of where funding is coming from for absorbed measures, you have told us the details are to be advised. You have talked of enhanced efficiencies in the organisation and you have talked about reprioritisation of programs. The only thing you have not spoken about, of course, is detailed programmatic specificity, but I am sure that is coming. If we can move onto some other funding issues, in January this year the Prime Minister launched the national security policy. In her speech she said:

The Government has already committed substantial funding and additional effort to strengthen our cyber capabilities, including $1.46 billion out to 2020 to strengthen our most sensitive networks.

That is an enormous amount of money. You can imagine my interest in finding out where that money was coming from, so I asked the Prime Minister through a question on notice. It was revealed that the funding was in fact to last until 2030, not 2020—a slight error of 10 years. The Prime Minister's grievous error—apparently a staffing error; you have to watch those staff—amounts to $114 million a year. That is quite an error, really, when you think about it. Given that Defence is the lead agency and is responsible for amalgamating the Commonwealth's cybersecurity operations under the new Australian cybersecurity operations centre, how does the government intend to make up this shortfall in funding or are the details to be advised, are there enhanced efficiencies or is there reprioritisation of programs?

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

I cannot believe the cynicism; I am just scandalised. As you well know, the Prime Minister promptly corrected the record in relation to that commitment over 2020 to 2030. I am sure you would appreciate that sometimes, very occasionally, very rarely, almost never, but sometimes, these things happen. I would not be condemning the Prime Minister or, indeed, the department. I think we need to appreciate that sometimes these things do happen. We can accept the criticism but not the cynicism.

Since coming to government in 2007 this government has increased the budget for intelligence and security in defence from $376 million in 2007-08 to $517 million in 2013-14. That funding will increase to $637 million over the forward estimates—a further increase of $120 million, or 23 per cent. The Defence Intelligence and Security Group has been excluded from the efficiency dividend—I am not sure that you are aware of that. I am confident we will meet our commitments in that regard.

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

Minister, further to your answer on my mental health question, I am particularly interested to find out what the government is doing for the mental health of our former service personnel. We have heard, as I mentioned before, through the inquiry that we are doing on injured and wounded service personnel from girlfriends and wives that they are usually the first port of call in identifying mental health issues in those soldiers who have returned from deployments overseas and who are suffering mental health issues. So I am particularly interested to find out what the government is actually doing for the mental health of former service personnel.

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

I thank the member for her question. One of the challenges that became obvious to me and to others is the fact that whilst we had very good systems in place, and developed new systems to support them, to address the needs of current serving men and women, we actually did not have in place what we should have had in place for families. So we have been moving in that space to provide support for families of current serving men and woman and also support for those people who may have separated from the Defence Force. Significantly, you would be aware, there was a restriction on who got access to some of these entitlements post service.

In the Defence white paper 2013 and in the budget, the government announced a $26.4 million package for enhanced mental health programs for serving and ex-serving personnel and their families, to be administered by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. DVA has in place a number of mental health initiatives. These include online mental health support information, GP services, psychologists and social work services, specialist psychiatric services, pharmaceutical support, post-traumatic stress disorder programs and hospital services for those who need it.

What we have done here, though, is expand non-liability health cover. This initiative expands the existing arrangements with support and immediate treatment for diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder, other anxiety disorders and depression without the need to lodge a compensation claim. That is quite important, because it means that people get almost immediate access to the treatment. These treatments will be expanded to include treatment for alcohol and substance misuse disorders. These arrangements have already been available to veterans with operational service, and this will be expanded to include veterans with eligible peacetime service since 1994.

It is important to understand that what we are doing here is expanding the range of people who now get access to these services. For example, those people who have been on operational service on border protection, those people who have been involved in humanitarian assistance, such as at Aceh, and those people who have been involved in other peacetime operations are now eligible to get these services. That is quite important, because we know that, whether it is in border protection or humanitarian assistance, some of these personnel have been exposed to really traumatic and quite dreadful experiences which have required them to seek support.

Prior to the passage of this budget, these people have not been able to access the support that other people with active service have been able to access—and that, to me, is really quite important. We are also expanding the amount of support that we are giving to the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service to include these people. That is important. The VVCS is a very good organisation. It is the organisation that we go to to provide support in the veteran community.

But we have still got more to do, and I do not shy away from this challenge. As I said, we have 65,000 personnel who have now served overseas since 1999. We had fewer than 60,000 people serve in Vietnam. So the number of people we have now who have experienced war is far larger than the number who served in Vietnam. Clearly, we do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past—and we will not—and we now have to make sure that both in the short term and the long term, the needs of these people are properly addressed.

The seamless transition between DVA and defence is really vital in that regard. We have worked towards a system where that is close to happening. In many places it is very good and in other places it is a bit 'how's your father?' but it will be fixed. I am very, very pleased with the cooperation we now have as a result of an MOU between the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs in dealing with these sorts of issues.

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

Minister, I would like to return—noting your statement; and thank you for it—to the issue of budget and funding. I note the comment that you made regarding cyber funding—that slight $1.46 billion rounding error over 10 years. I note that you have said that it is an isolated incident—a one-off—but I remember doing the coalition's response to the Prime Minister's national security statement where she spoke about Australia's defence expenditure comparable to other nations in the world. After the speech, the transcript that followed, had a different series of wording and the transcript was changed. Once may be isolated, Minister, but twice, unfortunately, is a pattern. But let us not be churlish about these things. Let us move on to DSTO funding.

The 2013-14 defence portfolio budget statements say that in 2012-13 DSTO received $441 million in funding. Next year, 2013-14, DSTO will receive $427 million. That is a $14 million cut, Minister. Let us also not forget that, in 2010-11 to 2011-12, you cut $13 million, and for 2011-12 to 2012-13 you cut $22 million. Minister, that is a cumulative cut of at least $49 million out of DSTO. And they are undertaking a significant organisational reform program, which I think is wise—and can I say: I am impressed with the new Chief Defence Scientist, Dr Alex Zelinsky. What I am not impressed about, Minister, is how you can possibly justify cutting the DSTO budget by $14 million this year alone and cumulatively by $49 million. How do you justify that? And, more importantly, what have you cut—or, Minister, are the details to be advised? Are we talking about enhanced efficiencies, or is there reprioritisation of programs?

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

I thank the member for his question and really do thank him for his interest in DSTO, which I think is one of the most remarkable organisations in government. Unfortunately, it hides its light under a bushel. That is for obvious reasons, in some regards, but I think we can do a lot more to publicise the work that it does.

Let me make it very clear: nothing that we will do in the context of DSTO's budget will affect our support for operations, which is its primary function. In my experience of this organisation over five years, it occupies a unique position in the Defence community but also in the research community across this country. What it is doing now is building a capacity for collaboration which did not exist previously, in the sense that, while it did collaborate with universities and other places, it is now developing a capacity to leverage off research which is being done in outside organisations which it can then use, or leverage off internally, for work which is being directed as a part of the national security space, or in support for operations, or in its future work.

You know the scale of work which DSTO does. It is vital in our support for operations. And, in terms of our support for operations in Afghanistan in particular, it has played a very important role in providing quite timely responses to immediate threats. And these timely responses to immediate threats have been able to be put in place very quickly. Nothing we have done and nothing we would do in the context of the better efficiencies that we want to achieve over the organisation will have any impact on our support for operations, and that is our primary function.

In the context of forecasting what our scientific requirements will be: again, I have no doubt about the depth of the relationships we have through DSTO with our counterparts in other countries, particularly in the 'five eyes' community, and the work which they are doing to support us. And leveraging off research which is being done elsewhere and partnering in research which is being done elsewhere has led to better outcomes. You would know that we now share facilities and research with these. So we are not doing repeat research; we are working collaboratively. These are giving us efficiencies, as they are giving other nations efficiencies—and here I am principally talking about the United States and Great Britain.

It is important that we appreciate the changing scientific environment: the greater collaboration between nations and the greater collaboration locally—not only between universities but now working more broadly with the private sector to appreciate what research capacities are in the private sector and trying to spin off that research for our Defence purposes.

I think we are really very fortunate to have Dr Zelinsky, as you rightly pointed out. His predecessor was a wonderful human being and a very, very good leader. They are different personalities, but they both have done significant work and done this nation a great service.

I have no doubt—because I meet with scientists in DSTO on a regular basis—about their capacity to continue to produce work of the finest quality for us and to guarantee not only support for our operations but also support for our national security, because they are now responsible for research in the national security space. I am in awe of this organisation. I am not a scientist; I do not have a scientific bone in my body. But I understand good research when I see it and I do appreciate the huge brains working on this stuff. I have no doubt that the efficiencies which we will gain through the decisions that have been taken will lead to a very positive outcome for all of us.

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

Minister, I would like to take you back to some of the earlier comments you made. Obviously, as our engagement overseas changes in Afghanistan and as our role in the Pacific and in East Timor winds down, more and more Defence personnel are coming back. You mentioned this in your answer to the member for Canberra. I have a particular question—

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

Well, get to it.

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

Leave him alone!

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

That's all right.

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

Order, members! That was not helpful. It is not helpful, Member for Fadden.

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

I might restart. With our overseas Defence personnel returning to Australia—you touched on it in your answer to the member for Canberra—what support will be provided? I have a cousin in the MEAO at the moment. In my small role as a legal officer in the RAAF I have dealt with a few matters where drugs and alcohol have been an issue; they can become a part of your lifestyle, especially when you are posted overseas, as anyone would know.

When people came back from World War II, we already had a very strong RSL support network. Sadly, our World War II veterans are passing away. Many of the office bearers are now Korean and Vietnam war veterans. But, as you said, there is a new wave of veterans coming back from overseas, and you mentioned the specific support given to wives and girlfriends, who might be the first sentinels, I guess—the first to know if something is going on. I am particularly interested in any support that is provided in terms of linking people up for employment and support groups. Many of the people who come back from Afghanistan or other overseas areas of operations do not feel like turning to the RSL—with all deference to our wonderful RSL groups. Minister, I recently had you at the Sunnybank RSL, and that was the statement they made about trying to link up with former ADF personnel in our community. How do they make contact when there is often a generation gap? The RSLs provide excellent services. My Sunnybank RSL—and my other RSLs, but I focus on that one because you came along to the meeting there, Minister—have great support networks that they can link people to, but it is about finding those former ADF personnel. They could be living right alongside, but they do not put a flag out the front saying 'veteran'. The new lot of veterans might benefit from the support networks there and from groups like the RSL.

Minister, could you detail the sort of support, the sorts of links and the sorts of personnel that are involved in providing support; and, on a more informal basis, what you have seen in terms of best practice around the nation in your job, because you do straddle those various portfolios? What are the learnings there that are not necessarily budget items, or have only been flagged as budget items that we might be able to roll out in the months or years ahead?

Obviously, our RSLs change. Sadly, the numbers in three RSLs in my patch are becoming smaller every year. One has had to amalgamate; another is looking particularly skinny. I have been able to provide it with new accommodation, which might sustain it. There are not long waiting lists to get into RSLs. In my electorate, clubs which have a services club attached to them have finances and they can have lots of resources, but the number of personnel lining up to become members is not great. In my area of Sunnybank, as you know, the demographics of the community have changed. I am wondering whether you could comment on that. (Time expired)

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

I thank the member for his question. I know about his deep appreciation of the importance of dealing appropriately with serving veterans and with former serving veterans. I go back for a moment, if I may, to the health initiative announced through the white paper and in this budget. As well as expanding the mental health non-liability cover, there is a post discharge GP health assessment. This initiative will support a health assessment fitness check for all ADF members after discharge and the fitness check will be supported by a health screening tool with a mental health component which will be developed for use by GPs. The check will be supported through existing Medicare items. I will not go through the detail of that—I may do later—or through the changes to the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service. One of the things we are doing, which will be of interest to you, is developing the Peer-to-Peer Support network. This initiative is a program to support the recovery of clients with a mental health condition by providing a non-clinical support network. Building on the experience of a successful men's health peer education program, the Peer-to-Peer Support network enables individuals to be assisted by their peers without judgment or stigma attached to the relationship as it is based on mutual understanding and experience.

One of the things we have learnt and we know the RSL accepts—and this goes to your question about how you provide access for people after they have served—is that it is true, unfortunately, that many serving men and women and former serving men and women in a younger age cohort do not see the direct relevance of the RSL. There is a capacity now for serving men and women who are overseas to become online members of the RSL and that is a positive thing, and we are providing, through the relationship between Defence and DVA, on-base support officers in all the major bases across the country. The on-base support officers are DVA employees who provide advice and assistance to current serving men and women. As a former serving man, the shadow minister would know that there are people of the highest rank in this country who are claimants in the DVA system because of injuries incurred while they were in service. It is part of the way we deal with current serving men and women. We have discovered that, as a result of having the on-base advisory services on base for 18 months or so, they provide a unique space for connecting Defence personnel with ex-service organisations. I must say that at Holsworthy the Vietnam Veterans organisation has almost a full-time presence and the DVA on-base advisory person works closely with that organisation—so they pick them up.

But we do have a challenge, and it is an enormous challenge, about how we track people once they leave the service. This is an obligation which we have because we want to make sure. Effectively, once you go through a recruitment centre and walk through the gates at Wagga for your initial training, you are potentially a client of the Commonwealth till you are dead. That is an important thing to understand. If you put the uniform on, you can expect to be looked after all your life if you have an accident, are injured, are wounded or whatever, and if you are killed your family will get support. For them, that is until the partners are no longer with us. So it is very, very important that we have a seamless transition and we try and track those people who are serving, beyond service, and provide them with the support they desire. I know that we will be doing the DVA bit shortly, and I will come to that in more detail. (Time expired)

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

Minister, a fine answer. It bore absolutely no resemblance to the wandering, waffling question but was a fine answer nonetheless. You started that answer by talking about ADF health, so I think—

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

Madam Deputy Speaker—

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

No, just sit down.

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

Please resume your seat, member for Fadden.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I would ask the member to withdraw that suggestion. I found it quite offensive.

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

Thank you. Would you please withdraw.

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

I withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker.

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

Thank you.

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

You started the answer, Minister, talking about ADF health, so let us talk about ADF health—I think it is great—because the 2012-13 budget delayed the rollout of the ADF free family healthcare program by a further 12 months. That is the 2012-13 budget, the current budget, which delayed it by 12 months in order to save 50 million bucks. Taking into account this delay—which is not the first, I might add—what we currently have now bears no resemblance to what was promised by the Labor government in 2007. The program was due to begin on 1 July this year. The 2012-13 budget papers even made special mention and called it a saving. The government is going to save $50 million by taking free family health care from ADF dependants.

This year's budget papers make absolutely no mention of the program at all—a signature program, Minister, from the election of the mighty Labor government in 2007, and there is no mention of it. But—surprise, surprise—a small note appeared a week or so ago on the Defence website which simply states that the program has been delayed once more, now beginning on 1 January 2014. Minister, I must have missed your press release, and I apologise that I did not receive that, or I must have missed it in the budget, but I picked it up on that small note on the website: another six-month delay after the election. The trial program has now been running for over four years. That simply has to be some sort of record in terms of a trial program for the ADF free family health care.

Minister, given the repeated failure of the government to implement the full program as your government promised to do—and there is a danger of creating two classes of ADF dependants, those with access and those without—can you guarantee that this program, delayed many, many times, will actually start on 1 January 2014, and what is the cost of the program?

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

Yes, I can, and I am happy to. You will be pleased to know that it has been out to tender. The tenders are in, and they are now being evaluated. So this program will commence on 1 January next year. If you looked at the white paper on page 106, you would have seen the reference to it under 'Support to Defence Families'. At 10.48 it says:

The 2009 Defence White Paper announced a three-year extension to the trial health care arrangements for the provision of basic medical and dental care to Defence families living in remote and regional locations. In the 2012-13 Budget, the Government decided to extend the trial until 30 June 2013.

You alluded to that. It continues:

The Government intends to continue the trial until 31 December 2013 and then cease the trial and make the program available to all dependants of permanent ADF members and dependants of Reserve members on Continuous Full-Time Service from 1 January 2014.

That will happen.

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

Minister, as you know, the coalition have announced that, if the coalition are successful at the 14 September election, we will index DFRDB pensions the same as the age pension. Minister, why won't you?

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

I am pleased you asked that, because it is now time to put to rest some of the furphies we have heard over an extensive period of time. Let us be clear in the first instance that superannuation retirement pay is not income support. Superannuation retirement pay cannot be seen as equivalent to a pension, an age pension or an invalidity pension. They are totally different things.

The opposition, through its spokesman on veterans' affairs, has conflated these two issues and led people to believe that somehow or another the superannuation entitlement they receive as payments as a result of their service is equivalent to the age pension. It is not a valid comparison. I know it. You know it. The shadow minister knows it. Minister Minchin, in a previous government, knew about it. He canned the whole idea. Even the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, has confused the issue. Earlier this year in Queanbeyan, New South Wales, he said, 'What is good for civilians is good for former Defence personnel.' Does he know what former Defence personnel get. Does he know the arrangements they have entered into when they join the Defence Force.

This fair indexation policy, which you are supposedly advocating, is anything but fair. Nobody who joined the Australian Defence Force after 1991 is covered by the opposition's proposal. The 150,000 members of the MSBS, those people who have served in Iraq, Timor-Leste, the Solomons and Afghanistan, who are not in the DFRDB scheme, are not covered. Indeed I was at an event recently where a former very senior and distinguished serviceman was talking with a currently serving man, who is very distinguished in his own right. The former serviceman said to me, 'What are you doing about our pensions?' I said, 'Nothing. We are not going to change it in the way the opposition has proposed.' He said, 'It is all about helping our young blokes. It is all about these young blokes here.' The young serving person said, 'No it's not. It has no impact on me at all.'

Yet we have this masquerade, this policy, as if somehow or another the whole of the veteran community is going to be impacted by it. Despite the opposition's posturing, the DFRDB scheme is a good one. Let me just explain what the benefits are. The payment benefits on retirement after 20 years of service are: 75 per cent, under 45 years of age; 75 per cent, retired after 20 years of service, before 45 years of age; and 40 per cent with 35 to 40. They have the ability to commute five times the annual retirement pay in exchange for a reduction in retirement pay. This option has been taken up by 99 per cent of members. There is a higher employer contribution than other schemes: 30 per cent, against the community average of nine per cent. Adopting the opposition's policy would increase the government's contribution to closer to 40 per cent and this is just not sustainable. The scheme has a higher percentage of final salary superannuation retirement pay compared to other Commonwealth schemes: the military is 51.25 per cent at 30 years; the civilian equivalent is less than 40 per cent.

So what is Mr Abbott wanting? Does he want us to bring back the entitlements under DFRDB to make them equivalent to public servants. If that is his intention he should say so.

Since 1988 a separate three per cent productivity benefit has been paid fortnightly, and that is available as a lump sum on retirement. Let us get to the nub of this. What does this mean for people currently leaving the service? A colonel equivalent who retired at the beginning of 2012 after 30 years service got a retirement pay of $68,000, converted to a lump sum of around $340,000 in exchange to reduced annual payment of $55,000. That is supposed to be equivalent to the age pension. (Time expired)

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

Are we continuing with that, Deputy Speaker?

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

If you would like to continue with the issue, yes.

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

It is a different portfolio, but my question would touch on both of those. It is further to that answer that you have provided, Minister.

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

Let's get into it.

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

Are we going to veterans now?

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

This is part of the same question.

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

Minister, please continue.

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

A major equivalent who retired at the beginning of 2010 after 20 years service, with retirement pay of $30,000 per annum, converted it to a lump sum of around $150,000 in exchange for an annual payment of $26,000. That is equivalent to the age pension. They are seen as the same. How can that be? What is the difference between an income support payment, the age pension, and a retirement benefit as part of a superannuation scheme? They are not equivalent. They are different. Yet we have got the shadow minister going round to RSL conferences and trying to give people the view that somehow or other these things are the same. That is misleading, it is wrong, it is confusing and it is designed to confuse. I can accept that people may think that they want a different indexation scheme. I can accept that. I am happy to have that discussion. But people think that somehow or other we are going to sit back here and accept the proposition that a retirement benefit scheme, a superannuation scheme, is to be seen as the same as an income support scheme. I think it is downright wrong.

An honourable member: Dishonest.

It is certainly dishonest. Let me just go to how these schemes currently operate. Let us put it in a proper context. Again, this is a superannuation scheme. It is superannuation, not income support. Understand this: over the period November 2007 to 1 January 2013, the salary for privates through to colonels in the ADF increased in excess of 19 per cent. From 1 January 2008 to 1 January 2013, a one-year shorter period, the comparable CPI increases for people on DFRB and DFRDB was 17 per cent. Are you guys trying to tell us that somehow or other these guys are not being treated fairly? I have already told you that your leader, from his own statements, has no idea what you are talking about. He says what is good for civilians is good for former Defence personnel. Well, these former Defence personnel are doing a damn sight better than their civilian counterparts—as they should.

Let us not be confused here. Trying to describe this superannuation scheme as an income support scheme, which is what the opposition is deliberately doing by confusing the two, is palpably dishonest, and I am sick to death of it. They have been out there in the veteran community, putting out misleading documents—documents which have emanated from the shadow minister's office and been sent to local members for distribution. We get them, so we know precisely what you are up to. You go out there deliberately misleading, effectively telling people lies, and you expect us not to respond. I have not responded until this day, but by God I am angry, because you have deliberately misled the veteran community. You have deliberately been dishonest to the veteran community. I do not think it is reasonable or fair for a person who wants to be the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to adopt that sort of behaviour. He should front up to the veteran community and explain to them the difference between a superannuation scheme and an income support scheme such as an age pension. But you will not, because I know what you are like. In any event, though, I know the truth, and people who are reasonable and who are prepared to assess this matter properly also know the truth. (Time expired)

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

There has obviously been overlap, but the Federation Chamber will now consider the veterans affairs segment of the Defence portfolio, in accordance with the agreed order of consideration. I call the member for Riverina.

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

This crosses both defence and veterans affairs, but I will ask it in a veterans affairs way. When Bruce Scott, the member for Maranoa, was the veterans affairs minister, he came to Wagga Wagga to open the refurbishment of the Wagga Wagga war cemetery. I will start, in the spirit of bipartisanship, by commending the minister for the Anzac centenary grants; $100,000 is going to be well used in each and every electorate. Applications for my committee in the Riverina closed last Friday, and the minister will be pleased to know that we received 30 applications from interested people, many ex-service people, who are very keen to ensure that that $100,000 is well spent.

I would like to see a statue dedicated to John Ryan, the Victoria Cross winner from Tumut, who won his Victoria Cross on the Hindenburg Line in 1918. He enlisted on the Kangaroos march, which took off from Wagga Wagga in 1915. I know the minister would be well aware of the Kangaroos march and the work being done by Graham Brown and others from Exeter to re-enact that wonderful historical event in which so many people from the 55th Battalion and others marched out of Wagga Wagga, ended up in Sydney and went to the Great War. Many of them did not return. John Ryan was one who did return. Unfortunately, he did not have a happy life after he returned. It is sad to say that his latter years did not treat him well. He found it hard to get employment. I hope that now, thanks to the government’s initiative, we can remember him in death perhaps better than we looked after him in life. I commend the government for that initiative.

I would like to ask the minister whether there has been a creeping reduction in the number of regimental bands in the Army. Many veterans have contacted me about this matter. As the minister would be well aware, Kapooka is the Army Recruit Training Centre; all the Army recruits go through Kapooka. It is a wonderful Army base. My city of Wagga Wagga is a tri-service city, with the Navy, the Air Force and the Army Recruit Training Centre.

In 1972, in its first year, the Whitlam Labor government said that it was going to disband the Kapooka band. A spirited group, led by Bruce Pinney and the late alderman Helen Frisby, started a Save the Band campaign. I do hope that we do not have to do that again. The number of Kapooka band members has reduced from something like 28 to 20, and that is a great concern. Not only does the Army band play at all the march-outs; it also plays an integral role in many fundraising activities in the community. I know how focused the current commandant, David Hay, whose posting is due to conclude at the end of this year, is on community efforts. First and foremost, the priority of the band is to play at the army march-outs. They do a wonderful job. Many of the band members have been to Gallipoli and Villers-Bretonneux in recent years to play at various Anzac Day ceremonies. They are renowned bandspeople, great musicians.

There is a great fear that, because of the government’s cutbacks in defence and the government’s cutbacks—they are called savings—in veterans affairs, the band is being reduced, along with bands right throughout Australia. I would like the minister to answer that question. I know it is a Defence portfolio question, but many veterans have asked me about it. I know the minister is well aware of an ex-Kapooka service soldier, Bert Hoebee. Minister, Bert is dismayed by the tone you used in your 15 May discussion about the DFRDB and DFRB and would like an apology on behalf of the ex-servicemen who he thinks have been slighted by your attack on them over the superannuation and veterans affairs entitlement issue. Thank you, Minister.

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

I thank the member for his question and say to him that I am not aware of any plans to cut back further on regimental bands or their participation in ceremonial activities. I thank him for his participation in the Centenary Local Grants Program. I think it is a very important initiative and we want every local member in the country to be engaged with it. We know from the previous commemorative events we had in the nineties that this can be very successful. But it does rely on the local community taking ownership along with the local member and getting the right outcome for the community. I do thank the member and I understand the importance to Wagga of Kapooka and the triservice arrangements which exist there.

There is now a general acceptance, I think, that we are entering a period of very important commemorative events which will last until Armistice Day 2018. That is important to us, but it is going to create a lot of demand for things like ceremonial banks—because there will be a lot of activity. One of the things that Defence is doing is planning how to use its personnel in an appropriate way. The Federation Guard, as you know, is a very important part of this and has been working consistently at a very high level at all the ceremonial events I have been present at, including smaller events we have taken veterans away to—for commemorative services in Crete, Singapore and elsewhere. The Federation Guard have been fundamental to that, as they were at Anzac Day at Gallipoli and Anzac Day at Villers-Bretonneux—and that will continue to be the case.

I can give you an assurance that, from my perspective, there are no plans to diminish or deny the opportunities for these bands to be participating. But they are operational issues. At the end of the day, these people are service personnel who are required to work at the direction of the chiefs of the various services, which is as it should be. We will not be interfering in that process.

I do want to come back to the last point you made—around DFRB and DFRDB. I am affronted by what you said. More importantly, I am affronted by the way the opposition has been peddling this. I am affronted by it because my door is always open for genuine discussion and dialogue. But I am sick and tired of the vitriol which is coming from some quarters of the ex-service community and which has been promulgated and stimulated in part by the shadow minister. Giving encouragement to people to vent their views in such an extreme way is, I think, an insult to me, particularly, as well as to the government and to all veterans.

When you sit down and discuss this thing reasonably with veterans, they understand that they are treated specially. They appreciate that the superannuation arrangements they entered into when the joined the Defence Force were as they were and that they have been substantial beneficiaries ever since. I think it is important that the opposition actually go and explain to people precisely what DFRDB recipients who are currently serving will get once they retire and then ask them, 'Do you see that as being the same as a pension?'

I mentioned earlier what a colonel would get after 30 years. I mentioned what a major would get after 20 years of service. Let me just go to a non-commissioned officer, a warrant officer, who retired at the beginning of 2012 after 30 years of service with a final salary of $47,000 per annum. He would get a lump sum of around $240,000, exchangeable for an annual payment, indexed to CPI, of $38,000.

Those in the private superannuation market have, since the GFC, seen their returns plummet. The returns for those people whose superannuation is indexed to CPI have increased and those people were, for a period, well in front of the commercial market. The returns for those people on CPI have increased and for a period were well in front of the commercial market. Why is it that there was no explanation by the opposition that this is a superannuation scheme guaranteed by taxpayers? (Time expired)

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

In keeping with comments on budgets, I bring the minister back to the Veterans' Affairs budget. Let me firstly say he certainly gets our strong support for the Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program. I think it is well received across the board. If you could take a quick note back to your department, Minister, eight weeks to get a logo out is probably a bit on the long side, but I am sure you will sort that out.

More importantly, the budget paper contains a $120,000-grant for the federal electorate of New England to support two commemorative projects. This grant is on top of the local grant program of $100,000 to every electorate. So this is a specific $120,000 grant over and above to New England. The first was $20,000 to the Gunnedah Shire band for the cost of their travel to France in April. The second is a $100,000-grant to the Inverell RSL for construction of a new museum. Whilst the projects seem worthwhile—and I lend no comment otherwise—Minister, can you explain why New England has received $120,000 over and above other electorates? For instance, was the $20,000 paid to the Gunnedah Shire band organised through a public tender? Could other bands in other electorates across the country have applied for the funding? Similarly, what will the Australian government's $100,000 commitment to the Inverell RSL project provide? Who else is funding the project? What is the total cost? When is it going to be completed?

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

Firstly, you would be aware that the independents have a capacity to make a bid as part of the agreement initially made with them and this is something that happened here. The Inverell payment was an appropriate one and was in partnership with them.

I point out that we are going to do an avenue of honour in North Queensland, which will be opened in late June by the Prime Minister, which is another important commemorative event. I am very pleased we are doing it. I do not see any disconnect between what we do there and what we have done elsewhere. There are other places where we have provided grants over and above the Saluting Their Service grants or other grants that are available because there are processes to deal with them.

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

Can I confirm that you said that as part of the government's agreement with the independents that they have special rules to make bids for grants under the commemorative project area that other electorates do not have access to. Is that correct?

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

There is an arrangement in the context of the budget process in which they are considered. However, bids can be made and considered within the budget process.

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

I draw your attention to another issue. Last night at Senate estimates the Department of Veterans' Affairs confirmed that the average claim processing time under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act was 35 days above that reported in the budget papers and in the department's own annual report. The department confirmed last night that in March 2013 the average processing time was 155 days. But in the budget paper the government says that the mean processing time was 120 days. Minister, were you aware of this misreporting?

The department confirmed that $1.7 million given to them in the budget to make improvements to the processing time for compensation claims will simply be used to bring processing times back to the reported mean time rather than seeking to reduce the reported average claims processing time. Whilst the new secretary noted that we are not meeting our targets, it is clearly the government which takes responsibility for all issues with the department and has to justify why they have allowed what would seem like inaccurate reporting of veteran compensation claim processing times.

Minister, I think you would agree that this may cast doubts made in other areas over claims made in other documents about other processing times. I can imagine this situation is somewhat embarrassing, especially since in your 2011 post-budget press release you announced the claims process was 'complex, wieldy and slow' and you announced $3.4 million to improve that process. I fail to see if anything meaningful has happened since that money was allocated.

The misreporting also comes at a time when the department claims under the MRC Act that claims will increase by eight per cent. Without proper training for advocates and pensioner welfare officers, the complexity of the system may lead to further delays. The department further confirmed last night that veteran advocates are not being given specific training about the changes to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act currently before the parliament. Minister, surely without proper training the problems with the claim processing may only increase.

The increase in claim processing times comes on the back of that 2011 decision of the government to cut advocacy funding by $1 million a year over the forward estimates. I think we all agree this decision has placed enormous strain on volunteer veteran advocates and pensioner welfare officers, who are struggling to cope with the increased demand for their service from veterans and their families. These advocates provide an essential service to veterans and their families, helping them to negotiate their way through what is a complex rehab system. Taking the support out from under their feet is disappointing. Minister, can you explain how this misreporting of average claim processing times in the portfolio budget statements came about and what was its genesis? Can you explain that differentiation and, if indeed there are mistakes, Minister, will you take responsibility?

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

I am not sure if there is a misunderstanding by the opposition, but there has been no attempt to manipulate the figures nor to misreport. I am not sure why you would get to that position. The 120 days quoted in the 2014 portfolio budget statement is a benchmark KPI for processing claims under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. The portfolio budget statement lists key performance targets for programs. It was not a misreporting of statistics. It is appropriate that there should be KPIs and it is appropriate we should try to meet the KPIs. I can only think that the opposition are saying leave them out—if the average is 155 days or 158 days, or whatever it is, make the KPI that. That is not appropriate. It is really inappropriate to change a benchmark target that is not being met.

We fully acknowledge that the average processing time for MRCA initial liability claims for the 12 months ending March 2013 was 155 days. There has been no fudging of figures, none. I am not sure why you would think there has been. What is in it for us to fudge the figures? It is a transparent process. Why fudge it? The performance against the individual targets is reported each year in DVA's annual report. There is no attempt to hide the figures; just read them and make comparisons. Of course we can do better and that is what we want to do.

The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade has been conducting an inquiry into the care of Australian Defence Force personnel wounded and injured in operations. The department recently reported to the committee that the times taken to process MRCA liability claims for 2011-12 was 158 days on average. MRCA claims received have increased by an average in excess of nine per cent per annum over the last five years. As you would expect from a prudent government, in response to this increase in claims the government have provided $1.7 million over four years to improve MRCA processing times. It is important that we do it. It is not in it for us to try to extend these times. We want to make sure that we meet these benchmarks where we possibly can. These KPIs are quite important to us. There should be targets which we try to achieve. That is why we are making this additional $1.7 million available.

DVA is further addressing the time taken to process claims under MRCA through a number of ways. Firstly, by applying streamlining processes, providing further training and guidance for staff, redistributing claims across locations, prioritising cases, redeveloping ICT tools and improving access to information from the Department of Defence.

There is absolutely nothing in it for us to try and obfuscate or disguise or otherwise hide what we are achieving in terms of these timelines. It would be incorrect to think that somehow or other we would deliberately go around a process to distort or misreport the figures when we are quite open to public scrutiny here—and we accept that scrutiny, and we accept the desire and need for us to do better. I want to thank the department for the diligent way they have gone about trying to achieve these targets. I know that they are applying their best endeavours to getting the best possible outcome for all of those people putting in claims. If we can improve the time to settle those claims, we will. It is our intention, and anyone who believes that we would do otherwise does not understand the way we do our work.

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

Earlier this year the Australian National Audit Office released an audit of the Veterans' Children Education Scheme, VCES, and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act Education and Training Scheme, let us just call that MRCAETS. The audit was a sobering analysis of how the government has certainly failed to ensure policies affecting veterans' children have kept pace with changes in the broader income support arrangements facing all Australians. In a repeat of their 2009 decision to exclude veteran disability pensions from the Harmer review of pensions, despite a hand-on-heart promise of the Treasurer on Brisbane radio on 12 September 2008 to do so, the government decided that payments to veterans' kids under VCES or MRCAETS would not be similarly adjusted. Instead, the government advised veterans to ring Centrelink to find out whether they would be better off under the family tax benefit system rather than DVA's own compensation-based education support system.

The audit found that, during the life of the scheme, changes in the wider social policy environment have at various times challenged DVA's policy and coordination capacity. Audit's analysis also indicates that, at least as far back as 2004, some students may have been financially better off by claiming benefits other than those offered by the VCES. However, DVA did not formally notify affected clients of this option until January 2012. According to the audit, the government rejected a DVA request to address the anomalous situation, saving $2 million by forcing veterans' families to Centrelink rather than DVA.

This situation would be bad enough on its own if the audit did not then find that the legislative provisions governing the VCES and MRCAETS were being flouted because of a lack of funding. The legislation requires VCES volunteer board members to travel and meet face-to-face with students, teachers and parents as part of the nation's obligations to assist these families. Funding for VCES board members to travel to see these students in rural and regional areas was slashed from a budget of $40,000 to just $10,000. This is particularly concerning, given that one of every two students under VCES and MRCAETS lives outside metropolitan areas, particularly in Queensland, New South Wales and Tasmania. Because of the lack of funding for outreach required by the legislation, volunteer board members were instead forced to rely on written reports sent to them by schools, rather than meeting face-to-face with the veteran, the student and the school to discuss the student's progress. The audit report highlighted the important role that these outreach arrangements have in assisting children of veterans to achieve better education outcomes.

Minister, this happened on your government's watch. Whilst we note that the department has accepted two recommendations from the ANAO, it may be cold comfort to veterans' families who have recently relied on a system that has been found to be broken. Minister, can you explain why the government rejected DVA's 2011 request to align VCES payments with the new FTB arrangement announced in the 2010 election? Will you also confirm that this rejection, to save just $2 million over four years, comes when advertising expenses for, for example, Gonski reforms are $21 million and, for NBN, $5 million?

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

Let me firstly make the observation that DVA, as the member for Fadden should know, or at least the shadow minister for veterans' affairs should know, has arrangements in place to advise VCES students of their options where FTB exceeds VCES allowances. The background to this is important.

From 1 January 2012 the government increased the maximum rate of FTBA for 16- to 18-year-olds in full-time secondary study from $52.64 to $214.06. It is currently $220.64 per fortnight. That equated it to the 13- to 15-year-old rate, which was a 2010 election commitment recognising the cost of older teenagers. The increased rate is to be payable until the end of the calendar year in which the child either turns 18 or leaves full-time secondary study, whichever is earlier. The end of year FTBA supplement will also be payable to families with children aged 16 to 18 at $726.35 pro rata once a tax return is lodged.

This change meant that new applicants for youth allowance could no longer be paid for a secondary student aged 16 and over and are asked to apply for FTB. However, Centrelink when wrote to existing youth allowance recipients very few applied for FTB—fewer than 10,000 from 85,000 letters sent out. DVA's VCES and MRCAETS rate of $223 per fortnight for 16- and 17-year-olds living at home is set at the same rate as Centerlink's youth allowance. The rate of FTBA, including the annual FTBA supplement is now more than the annual amount of youth, VCES and MRCAETS allowances payable for a secondary student aged 16 to 17 except for those on living away from home and homeless rates. This means it is more beneficial for some families after means testing to receive FTB than education assistance under VCES or MRCAETS—that is, they will be better off receiving a comparable payment from Centrelink than from DVA.

Also available from Centrelink is family tax benefit part B, which is targeted at single income and low-second-income-earning families. This may be paid up to $100.66 per fortnight. The FTB part B supplement is up to $354.05 per family per year. Under the children's scheme, Abstudy postgraduate award scheme or the VCES there is a similar preclusion to that of FTB. This means that dependants over 16 who apply for FTBA will be able to retain their orphan pension if the criteria are met. Those who have lost their orphan pension owing to receiving another payment will likely seek to have it reinstated. There were approximately 200 recipients of orphan pension in 2012. It was expected that this number would increase by 72 with those applying for FTB. Statistics indicate that only nine orphans have switched to FTB.

There is currently no preclusion in the MRCA that presents a payment for education assistance being made at the same time as a payment for an eligible young person. The reasons VCES and MRCAETS cannot be aligned for FTB rates of education allowance under the VCES and MRCAETS are linked to rates of youth allowance. However, unlike youth allowance, education allowances under the VCES and MRCAETS are not means tested. Aligning FTB is a difficult and is a different program to redesign. We are talking about a very small number, relatively speaking, of people. As I said earlier, DVA has put in place arrangement to advise VCES students of their options where FTB exceeds VCES allowances. That is a simple fact and something that I know you would appreciate.

I will conclude by returning to an earlier contribution to make sure that there is no misunderstanding. I have no difficulty at all with people arguing that they want to change an indexation rate for their retirement benefit. I have a great deal of difficulty in equating it to an age pension. I will read what Nick Minchin said when he was the coalition minister for finance:

This claim (to change indexation) was properly rejected by the Howard Government, of which I was a member.

There is no inherent logic to the proposition that a public sector employment employment-related superannuation payment should be indexed in exactly the same fashion as a means-tested welfare benefit, in this case the age pension.

I rest my case. It is something so logical even those opposite should see it.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Education, Employment and Workplace Relations

Proposed expenditure $4,202,808,000

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

The Federation Chamber will now consider the employment and workplace relations segment of the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Portfolio, in accordance with the agreed order of consideration.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer the minister to some correspondence he produced earlier this week between himself and Telstra in 2009. He wrote to Telstra on 27 March 2009 raising a concern from a Mr Yossi Berger about asbestos-containing material in Telstra pits. Telstra wrote back on 28 April, in a letter the minister has distributed in the press gallery, in which Richard Coleman said:

Such pits are only removed and replaced in situations where they have suffered significant damage and therefore present a hazard. When serviceable pits remain in situ, they are not considered to present a risk to health and safety of any person.

The minister wrote again, in August 2009, pressing Mr Berger's argument that all the pits should be replaced. Then he received a reply on 13 August 2009 from Michael Rocca, then the head of network services, who wrote:

It is Telstra's opinion the proposals of Mr Berger do not achieve a satisfactory balance between commercial practicability and the actual health risk posed by in-ground pits that contain bonded asbestos cement. The potential higher risk for disturbance of in situ asbestos plant is recognised within the Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos, 2nd edition 2005, which states:

The removal of asbestos-containing materials can potentially expose workers and others to higher levels of … fibres than leaving the materials in situ.

The minister wrote back again, to Mr Thodey this time, the chief executive, and made the point in his letter, dated 2 November, that, when such ACM materials are disturbed, organisations, employees and contractors can be exposed to fibres. And he suggested a formal program of total removal would be a great legacy. Mr Thodey wrote back and, in his letter of 14 December, said:

Given the low risk of in situ pits, the potential risks of removal and the prohibitive associated costs, we do not believe a proactive pit removal process is justified at the time.

What this demonstrates is that, in 2009, the minister was very aware—very aware indeed—that there was asbestos-containing material in Telstra's pits. He was aware that Telstra had a view, supported by the industry standards, that they are safe if they are intact and left in situ and undamaged, and that health risks arise when they are disturbed. Of course, at that time they were being disturbed rarely, only when maintenance was required or trucks ran into them and so forth. However, by 2011, the deal that was done between NBN Co. and Telstra, of course, involved the disturbance of almost all of these pits on a massive, nationwide scale. From 2011, there have been reports in the press of asbestos being found in the works being conducted either by NBN Co. or by Telstra as part of the NBN project. There was a 2011 report in the Age, on page 6 of the 5 May edition; on 13 December last year there were reports about contamination found in Western Australia; and there have been a number of reports earlier this year as well.

I am hoping the minister will take the opportunity to enlighten us here, but, notwithstanding the fact that all of these pits were going to be disturbed so that the whole context changed dramatically with the NBN deal, and notwithstanding that there were reports of asbestos contamination, he does not appear to have raised concerns about them, having been put on notice in 2009, either with the communications minister or with NBN and Telstra prior to last week, when the matter became a very hot issue, as we all know, in the Sydney media. I could refer the minister, of course, to the questions that my colleague the member for Bradfield and others have raised in the various committees and the Senate estimates, but I imagine he does not pay much attention to questions from the opposition.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is a little hash of the member opposite to say that I do not pay attention to his questions; I do. In terms of asbestos and the issues which he has raised, let me say again—and I will keep saying it, because it is an important opportunity to remind members of the opposition who have shown a new-found interest in asbestos, asbestosis and mesothelioma—that asbestos is a giant scourge. Last night on Lateline the member for Wentworth accused the government of trying to create a panic. I tell you what: when we know that nearly 700 people a year are dying from asbestos related diseases and that another 30,000 to 40,000 people will die of asbestosis, to not take the issue, not talk about it and not deal with the concerns raised by the residents of Penrith is not appropriate.

Let us look at the history of asbestos, because it goes to the wafer-thin propositions being advanced by the member for Wentworth, which are that somehow this government has not been doing enough about asbestosis and the dangers of asbestos. Let us have a little bit of history. First of all, the Telstra pipes and the Telstra ducts, which contain asbestos, have been rolled out over many, many years. Telstra and the Postmaster-General knew this. In fact, I must put on record a positive comment that the member for Wentworth's father-in-law, an eminent barrister, represented very ably victims of asbestos exposure on the waterfront. So these issues and the dangers of asbestos were well known.

We also know that certain corporate organisations such as James Hardie and, indeed, CSR chose to cover up and deny the risks of asbestos for many years. It was not so long ago that former opposition leader Mark Latham had to shame those opposite into handing back Hardie's donations. He had to shame them into doing it. The dangers of asbestos have been well known and for a very long time in Telstra. Indeed, it was well known to the opposition when they were in government. The late member for Calare, Peter Andren, raised with the then government and the then minister for communications on notice issues identical to the questions which I raised in 2009. At that stage, I think it was the then minister for agriculture in the House of Representatives, on behalf of the minister for communications, who said that Telstra had asbestos in its system, in some of its pits and in some of its ducts. So the sort of startling smoking-gun revelation that somehow it has only been of late that some of the dangers of asbestos have been revealed is not fair and not accurate.

Mr Turnbull interjecting—

You will get your chance, Mal. Sorry. I don't mean to upset that glass jaw of yours. We were aware in 2001 of the need for Telstra to create a separate fund, and indeed it was the Leader of the Opposition, then as a minister, who said, 'No, we won't.' Again, in 2007, it was the Leader of the Opposition, who was the minister for health at that stage, who would not support the PBS being varied to include drugs which would help alleviate the suffering of victims of asbestosis and mesothelioma. Indeed, when the late Bernie Banton, the great warrior on the issue of asbestos, came forward, he was personally vilified by the now Leader of the Opposition.

We dial forward to now. It is correct that, even as the parliamentary secretary for disabilities, I maintained a strong interest in health and safety—reflecting knowledge, though, which both sides of the House already had. I certainly did contact Telstra a number of times, because people in Tasmania were saying to me that they were concerned about this process. Telstra came back not once, not twice but three times and said that they had it under control. This, I have to say, contrasts with the lack of interest of those opposite, who, despite knowing the issues, have not bothered to put them forward. I have not heard in this debate any reference to those—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11 : 44 to 11:57

As I was saying, asbestos is a deadly serious issue and requires a serious approach. Telstra had advised the government—and they had been in contact with Comcare—that they had procedures for the rollout in terms of their responsibilities on asbestos. The CEO confirmed this at the end of 2009.

What is also clear is that in the last few weeks there have been a number of incidents which show, in my opinion, a breach of the standards we would expect in terms of the remediation of asbestos lined pits, which have been involved in the roll-out of new telecommunications. It is clear to me, from speaking to residents and others, that Telstra needs to lift its standards. That is what we are doing with a new national register. That is what we are doing with a task force oversighting Telstra. And Telstra has given stronger commitments than ever before.

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

I am very pleased to be able to be here this morning to make some inquiries in relation, particularly, to the employment and workplace relations portfolio. There has obviously been a great deal of good work done throughout the course of this government's life, particularly in relation to the creation of jobs—over 900,000 jobs created as a result of the fiscal settings and the endeavours of this government since it came to office. Obviously, there has been a significant emphasis on providing support for low-income workers and also providing support by means of taxation arrangements, changes to superannuation arrangements and changes in the way of household assistance measures which have provided, appropriately, support to some of those who are the most vulnerable in our society, including low-income workers. As someone with around 27,000 workers with a taxable income of less than $37,000 per annum in my electorate as at 2008-09, I am very conscious of the arrangements entered into by this government and the good work done by the minister in relation to low-income superannuation contribution. Regrettably, it is the case that those very same 27,000 workers will be those who are exposed to the proposals of the opposition on the low-income superannuation contribution. They have made it clear that they basically support an increase in taxation for that category of people—those 27,000 people in my electorate who are low-income workers. I know that this minister has certainly done a great deal of work both on that superannuation measure and on the progressive increase in the Superannuation Guarantee—another thing that is being resisted by those opposite. It is only ever a Labor government which focuses on superannuation, and, once again, all of these measures stand to the significant benefit of low-income workers in our community.

I know that there has also been a great deal of work done to support job seekers and more broadly across government to support those sorts of people who are in vulnerable circumstances. I know there have been more than 2,800 job seekers in La Trobe who have benefited through household assistance measures provided by the government to enable them to have a bit of extra income. There is a whole range of things to assist low-income workers and I am conscious of the fact that so many of those workers are often women—women in part-time or casual employment. In fact, I think the figures reveal that around 70 per cent of those categorised as part-time or casual workers are women. All these measures appropriately, but disproportionately, assist women in those sorts of jobs.

There has been very good work done by the government and the minister in pulling back from the WorkChoices regime that was left to us by the Howard government, and that good work continues. I know that the minister is very conscious of things like ensuring the ongoing protection of penalty rates and ensuring that we have a fair system of workplace relations. All of these things go to supporting, as Labor traditionally does, the people who are most vulnerable in our society—people on low incomes or who may otherwise be exposed to undue pressure in the workplace. The minister will also be aware that I have certainly taken an interest in arrangements relating to payments for some of our most disadvantaged people, particularly Newstart payments. My question today refers to the Senate's inquiry into Newstart: could you update the chamber on recent budget measures which assist single parents and Newstart recipients?

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for La Trobe for her question. She has a longstanding interest in reform and supporting people who are less well-off in our communities. It is correct to say that this Labor government has kept our economy strong during some of the most difficult financial circumstances seen in peace time since the Second World War. We have created 950,000 new jobs and, as much as the member for Bradfield shakes his head, these are facts which not even the coalition conservative propaganda writers can unwrite. Despite this, we know that some people are doing it tough. Labor knows fundamentally that the best way out of disadvantage for people is to have a job. The best way for families and kids to get the best start in life is to have employment in their households. It is important to go to the big picture first to set the scene for the specific points that the member for La Trobe is inquiring about. We have relatively low inflation in this country. The cash rate set by the Reserve Bank is as low as it has been in a very long time. We have unemployment which is still reasonably soft at 5.5 per cent. We have seen a 13 per cent increase in the size of our GDP since the global financial crisis, our ASX is coasting towards 5,000—a distinct increase in the last 12 months—and I am optimistic that superannuation returns will be double-digit. Business investment as a share of our GDP is 18½ per cent. So there are things going well in this country that we do not always hear about from the coalition.

Having said that, the member for La Trobe is correct—there are significant pockets of disadvantage in this country. That is why we unveiled a package in the budget to support people into work. I can report to the member for La Trobe that from 20 March 2014 this package will provide an increase in the income-free area beyond which people's allowances are affected. This is the first time that has been done in over a decade. It is a $258 million investment to increase the amount that people can earn before their income support payments are affected. We want to increase the income-free area from $62 to $100, which will increase take-home pay to $494 per week. Not only is it the first increase in more than a decade; it is the first time it has been indexed to CPI in Australia's history. That will take place from 1 July 2015. It is estimated that 150,000 Australians will benefit immediately. We will provide extra benefit for thousands to take up work.

It does not stop there. We have the pensioner education supplement. This is important because, just as a job is important to people's well-being, the best education, or re-education, and support for education is what helps Australian employees have the resilience to cope in a changing global economy. There will be nearly $40 million to increase education opportunities. This will benefit 25,000 additional single parents moving from the PPS to Newstart. It will benefit an additional 90,000 single parents already on Newstart. This pensioner education supplement of $62 a fortnight will ensure that people can train for a certificate II, III or IV in the TAFE system, or indeed for a bachelor degree.

We are also going to extend the concession card. This will see a $2.2 million increase to concession entitlements, and 2,000 people will benefit over the forward estimates. There will be a 12-week buffer when moving off income support payments because income is too high to attract some of the other allowances. This will allow people, as they make the transition, access to discounted GP costs, car registration and medicines.

All of this builds upon the $1.1 billion income support bonus for low-income earners, which this government has already passed. I am sure it disappoints the member for La Trobe, like it disappoints me and disappoints millions of Australians, but those opposite voted against giving $1.1 billion to the lowest paid Australians. When it comes to assisting multinational mining companies, the mob opposite know where to go—they do not need to be told; they just march like automatons to the beat of the multinational drum. But when it has come to supporting low-income people, those opposite have voted against it. What is worse is that they have also indicated they are going to knock off the schoolkids bonus—bang, $400-plus for children of primary school age, and bang, $800 for children at secondary school. Those opposite can always be relied upon to miss an opportunity to help the low-paid. When you look at the tax they are putting on the superannuation contributions of people earning under $37,000—a new 15 per cent great big tax—it is a shame.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the minister was talking about the political party that could be relied upon to support multinational mining companies, I assumed he was about to refer to the Treasurer and the Prime Minster who, after all, when they were designing their new mining tax, sat down and allowed the three biggest mining companies to design it. That is one of the reasons it has not raised any money.

The minister chose not to answer the question that I asked in my first intervention, which was what did he say, what actions did he take, after 2009 with regard to asbestos-containing material in the Telstra infrastructure in light of his being aware of the problem, as indeed many people were—most people interested in telecommunications were; it was hardly a secret—through his own personal correspondence with Telstra? Then the context changed and the pits were going to be disturbed on a wholesale basis. I should just describe what this disturbance involves. The way the NBN Co.'s network is designed, their junction boxes—what they call multiports—are devices that are being lodged in pits, but the existing pits are too small, for the most part, and so they have to be replaced with a larger plastic pit. Obviously, where the pit is made of concrete or concrete thought to contain asbestos, there is plenty of potential for contamination because the pit basically has to be broken up and removed. So it goes from being an occasional pattern of disturbance to being a near-universal pattern of disturbance. The minister has chosen not to answer the question as to what he did after 2009 in terms of raising his concerns with the minister for communications, let alone with NBN and Telstra. If the minister is not prepared to answer that, we cannot force him to answer it.

I turn now to another question, because it is very important that this issue be dealt with with clarity. The minister is quite right in saying that asbestos is a very dangerous substance. It is a very big issue and there is a complete unity ticket on that point. But we have to be very clear about what we are talking about. Now, the minister in 2009 was proposing to Telstra that there should be a proactive removal of all of their asbestos-containing infrastructure, whether it needed to be repaired, maintained, augmented or not—proactive removal. Telstra came back citing the national standards and saying, no, that would be unsafe.

The minister should tell us—and I think he owes the Australian people an explanation: does he believe that asbestos-containing material, whether it is in telecom networks or elsewhere in the built environment, should be removed proactively, regardless of whether it needs to be mended or altered or drilled into or repaired? In other words, is the minister still of the view—

An honourable member: It could be in my garage.

Yes, it could be the honourable member's garage—if the honourable member has a garage with asbestos-containing material in the walls or in the roof, and it is intact, it is not friable, it is not flaking or powdered. Is the minister saying that that type of asbestos-containing material should be proactively removed? It is important for him as the minister for workplace relations to let us know that. And, if he does take that view, what does he say to the point—and I am not expressing a personal opinion on this but I want him to address it—that was made in the Code of practice for the safe removal of asbestos, which is a publication by his own department, I believe, which states:

The removal of asbestos-containing materials can potentially expose workers and others to higher levels of airborne asbestos fibres than leaving the materials in situ.

Is he arguing for a wholesale, proactive removal of all asbestos-containing material, even when it is stable, intact and not friable? That is a very important issue that he should address, because this issue is too serious for generalities and political grandstanding. We need precision.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the member for Wentworth's well-known irony when he says this issue should not be politicised, when in fact that is what the opposition has done. First of all, in terms of the question he alleges is not answered, outside of my ministerial responsibilities in 2009, because I have an interest in health and safety I did contact Telstra not once, not twice but three times. There is correspondence I have tabled where Telstra, in the very last line of the very last letter, say that they are preparing for the NBN rollout. So, despite this sort of sly inference that somehow what has changed is the NBN rollout, Telstra were fully alive to that in 2009, and they certainly indicated that they have solid policies on asbestos.

I am interested in the fact that the member opposite says that the risks of asbestos in Telstra infrastructure are well known. What did the opposition ever do?

We have the relentless NBN watchdog, the member for Wentworth, sitting opposite. What did he ever do to raise the issue of health and safety? He probably has raised it and he probably has raised asbestos issues with the company since 2009—I do not know.

I invite the member for Wentworth to work with the government on asbestos issues. It is fun to throw bricks, but on this particular issue it is not appropriate. I look forward with great interest to finding out how many speeches the member for Wentworth has given about the perils of asbestos. He may have better records than I do—I fully acknowledge that, so I make that caveat—but I have searched nine years of the member for Wentworth's contributions to see what he has said about asbestos. I searched high and searched low—actually, I got someone else to press a button and search Hansardbut not a word until last week. I do not mind the belated interest, because it still is an important issue.

Mr Turnbull interjecting—

I do not mean to puncture the member for glass jaw here, but we must look at what has actually happened. For the record, I again state that the opposition's interest in this matter of Telstra and asbestos is being fuelled by their desire to rubbish the NBN. I do not believe they come here with the bona fides they claim, although I will exempt a number of individual backbenchers and shadow ministers whom I have noticed, periodically over time, raising the issue of asbestos. So it is not a blanket condemnation. But I find it difficult to accept a lecture and some of the politicised rubbish I am hearing.

Going through what we have done: Comcare have audited Telstra in the past, they have reviewed pit safety—

Mr Turnbull interjecting—

As much as the member for Wentworth may find my answer discomfiting, I will give it in the manner I choose. He can ask the questions he wants to ask, but I will put the truth as it should be put.

In 2011, Comcare conducted a review of pit safety. They found a breach by Telstra, which Telstra then rectified. If you want to look at our record in tackling asbestos, it is worth noting that, since I became the minister 17 months ago, it is this side of the House which has finalised the Asbestos management review report, which looked at asbestos everywhere—not just the issues the Liberal Party want to conduct their political games over. It is this government which has acted on the recommendations. I have never had to stand behind a queue of coalition frontbenchers trying to talk about occupational health and safety. It is this government which has passed the legislation for the Office of Asbestos Safety. It is this government which, having heard the latest spate of reports in the last six or seven weeks, has acted to have a meeting with Telstra, NBN, the contractors, the stakeholders—we invited unions to the meeting, something which would never happen under those opposite because of their prejudice and bias against trade unions—and the victims groups.

When it comes to prioritised removal, we are not saying that all asbestos everywhere must be removed tomorrow. It is impossible. There are not enough licensed removalists and there are not enough places to take it. I get that, because I have been following this issue for a long period of time. The dangerous argument—not advanced by the member for Wentworth but by the man who beat him by one vote in the leadership ballot, the Leader of the Opposition—is to just leave it in the ground. 'The safest thing is to leave it in the ground,' the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday. What dangerous words. He is not fit to hold the highest office in the nation if he does not understand that sooner or later we have to start removing this asbestos—otherwise more people will die and more people will get sick. It is not enough to say, 'Leave it in place; we can do no more.' We can and we should.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note what the minister has just said. I understand he did not raise the matter with the minister for communications, Telstra or NBN after 2009. That is now clear. I want to clear up, for the benefit of honourable members, the reference the minister made—which was very misleading, perhaps innocently misleading—to the letter of David Thodey dated 14 December. That letter ends, in the penultimate paragraph: 'Given the low risk of in situ pits, the potential risks of removal and the prohibitive associated costs, we do not believe a proactive pit removal process is justified at this time. This is particularly so given the rollout of a new fibre network by the new National Broadband Network Company.' What the minister may not be aware of is that at the end of 2009 there was no agreement by NBN Co. to use Telstra's pits and pipes. In fact, what NBN Co. was going to do was to overbuild the entire Telstra network. Mr Thodey, no doubt, was contemplating a situation where entirely new infrastructure which did not disturb his pits and pipes was going to be built by NBN Co. And that was the original plan of the government. All of that changed, however, when the agreement was reached, by June 2011 as I recall, between NBN Co. and Telstra which involved the wholesale disturbance of the Telstra infrastructure.

The second matter that I asked the minister about—and perhaps he could just put this to rest—

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, the time allotted for this matter has expired. There are other ministers at the table who have important issues that I am sure the members of the coalition want to question them on. The member for Wentworth is two minutes in and has not yet asked a question. He ran an MPI on this matter yesterday. Can I respectfully suggest that if he has a question of the minister he might wish to put it on notice. I am sure the minister would be willing to answer on notice any question that he was going to put to him.

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

I was not aware of the recommendation on the speakers list that this debate should finish at 12.15. I ask the member for Wentworth to ask his question so that we can—

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will do so, Mr Deputy Speaker.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: as a common courtesy I did not jump up at the end of the minister's answer because I saw that the finish time for this debate was 12.15. Had I known the debate was going to continue, I would have jumped up and had the call.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have the call.

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

The Minister for Wentworth will ask his question immediately and then I will put the question.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will ask the question. I asked the minister earlier whether he advocated the proactive removal of all asbestos. He responded by saying no, he did not advocate that. But then he went into an attack on the Leader of the Opposition, criticising him for saying that asbestos-containing material which—

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

Member for Wentworth, please ask the question. I intend to move on.

Mr Shorten interjecting—

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that this discomfits the minister.

Mr Shorten interjecting—

You just don't want to give a straight answer, do you? Your inactivity is something you are rightly ashamed of, and I am holding you to account for it.

Mr Shorten interjecting—

You have done nothing. Since 2009, you have done nothing.

Mr Shorten interjecting—

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

The member for Wentworth will resume his seat. Minister, do you have a point of order?

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member is carrying on. He has not got to the question. He has been out of time for a while. What is more, I have made the offer to meet with him. I am happy to meet with you, Malcolm. You might not have the cameras there and you might not have your backbench. Let us just talk about asbestos. You are better than this. Be the spy catcher, Malcolm Turnbull, not the goblin Greek. Let us meet. Let us talk. If you really care about asbestos, let us do it properly as the residents and victims deserve. You are better than this, Malcolm.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not think you are better than you are now!

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

The member's time has expired.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

Proposed expenditure, $539,700,000

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

Whether this is as contested as what we just had, I do not know, but thank you for the opportunity to speak to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014 and to present the 2013-14 Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry appropriation. This budget is the next instalment of the Gillard government's plan for Australia's primary industries. The allocation for the portfolio in 2013-14 is $1.92 billion, an increase of $300 million over 2012-13.

The $440 million Farm Finance package will help farmers struggling with debt, through targeted financial assistance. Up to $30 million per annum for two years to each state and the Northern Territory for concessional loans to eligible farmers is available in this budget. Farm Finance includes $6.3 million over two years for around 17 new rural financial counsellors across Australia. Farm Finance enhances eligibility for the Farm Management Deposits Scheme, increasing the non-primary-production income threshold for farm management deposits from $65,000 to $100,000.

On drought reform: we know that drought in this country is inevitable, just as we know that the old exceptional circumstances policy did not work. It was reactive and inequitable and did not prepare our farmers for the future. Minister Ludwig and his state and territory colleagues recently signed an Intergovernmental Agreement on National Drought Program Reform. The centrepiece is the Commonwealth's $99.4 million investment in a new farm household allowance. Farmers can receive support when they need it. They will not have to hope that their property is on the right side of a line on a map. Case managers will provide the support farmers need to help them to better manage risk, improve their preparedness for hardship and make tough decisions about their long-term sustainability.

The National Food Plan is listed in the budget as 'decisions taken but not yet announced', but the government released Australia's first National Food Plan on 25 May, so, as we talk now, it has been announced. The plan includes $42 million worth of new initiatives, including $28.5 million for an Asian Food Markets Research Fund, $5.6 million to build Australia's food trade ties in key and emerging markets, $2.2 million to assess the long-term prospects for food supply and demand in Asian countries and $2 million to create a brand identity for Australian food. It provides a framework for Australia's food system based on the national objectives of the Australia in the Asian century white paper.

On natural resource management: the budget confirms a $200 million investment in the successful Reef Rescue program until 2018, including $70 million from the sustainable agriculture stream of Caring for our Country.

In forestry, delivering on our Tasmanian forestry agreement commitments, $500,000 is allocated to develop a national certification standard through a grant to the Forest Stewardship Council. This is an important part of the Gillard government's $330 million investment to support the historic agreement to provide certainty for industry, jobs and the environment.

Commitments made in previous budgets are confirmed in this budget. Those commitments include a continued commitment to the post-entry quarantine facility in Victoria, a continued investment in primary industries research and development and continued investment in Australia's farmers for a changing climate. I commend the portfolio appropriation to the chamber.

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

Minister, the 2013-14 budget strengthens the foundation of Australian agriculture. It prepares our farmers for future challenges and lays groundwork for opportunities for rural Australia, particularly now, in the Asian century. The budget, as you have outlined, will make farmers stronger and better prepared for the future and will enable them to access more opportunities, both here and overseas.

I note that the budget makes provision for the historic Farm Finance package, which will help alleviate pressures of debt and provide targeted financial assistance for farmers, particularly when they need it.

At the moment, when you look through my area, you see we have a pretty strong green drought. The grass is green but there is not much cover, which is making it difficult for farmers. Minister Ludwig was exactly right when he said that viable farmers cannot grow if they are held back by unmanageable debt. Farm finance responds to that. I hope that the Victorian government gets off its backside and works with the Gillard government to deliver this opportunity, which I note even the VFF—the training ground for national MPs, their apprenticeship factory—has urged them to do.

Honourable member interjecting—

He will be the fourth president in a row who has gone into that and the VFF says they are not political. The budget also funds the next stage of the government's plan for Australian agriculture, preparing for the future. The Gillard government's National Drought Program Reform gives farmers the tools they need to prepare for drought. We know over the years just how bad drought has been across this country and the issues it has caused in rural Australia. I am pleased to see that the budget has made provision for the $99.4 million farm household assistance to support farmers through hardship. This is very important for our farmers. We look forward to the states finalising their contribution to the National Drought Program Reform, including the farm business training and the social support.

The budget also confirms $429 million for the Carbon Farming Futures Program. That is taking the best abatement and greenhouse gas reduction research and converting it to use on farms. The Gillard government has continued our commitment to research development and extension funding. The budget also includes $238.2 million for the Research and Development Corporation, Minister Ludwig has told us. Investing in RD&E and ensuring that an environment which encourages innovation is vital to Australian farmers. They can capitalise on the Asian century.

I note that the budget continues this government's commitment to biosecurity reform. We know that a modern, world-class biosecurity system is a gateway to global marketplaces. Because of our strong biosecurity system, our farmers get the opportunity to invest and trade in the world's best markets, while also managing the risks which come with increased passenger and cargo movements into the country. The 2013-14 budget demonstrates the Gillard government's plan for Australian agriculture so that our farmers can keep feeding Australians and the world.

The budget keeps our economy strong, makes the smart investments for our future and ensures that every Australian gets a fair go. We are investing for the future, putting jobs and economic growth first and protecting the important services that Australians rely on. My question to you, Minister, is: can you advise the chamber on the status and design and construction of the state-of-the-art, post-entry quarantine facility announced in last year's budget in the seat of McEwen?

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

I have a couple of questions relating to departmental issues, which I will put on the record now. Then I will speak to the next series of questions. As far as the departmental issues are concerned, question on notice No. 139 in October 2012 and No. 124 in February 2013, were the coalition asked what nil meant to the annual rental of leased properties. The response was that annual rent is nil as the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is charged a licence fee, not rent, for some properties. That is a ludicrous answer and very technically a semantic play on words because the real question is: what is it actually costing the department, whether it be rent, a licence fee, whatever it might be to site itself in properties around Australia? That is really the question I am asking of the minister or his representative. What is it actually costing and can you now provide details of rent payments, licence fees and any other moneys paid for the lease of properties by DAFF?

My other questions are: what role has DAFF had in investigating the level of animal welfare issues that are associated with the Queensland cattle crisis? And what contact has DAFF or the minister had with the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities to look at cattle being allowed into national parks?

The Minister for the Environment, Water, Population and Communities, representing Senator Ludwig, made mention of the fact that recently, at a meeting with his state counterparts, an MOU was discussed regarding drought issues. And, yes, quite rightly, as the minister said, the old program of drought relief was changed in the way that he described. But the only other hard fact in that whole MOU—there was a heap of ideas and touchy-feely stuff and various things but only one hard fact—was that the government would not be the lender of last resort. That is fine, except at the same meeting it was discussed how the states and the Commonwealth would combine to make a reality the loans that the Commonwealth wants to make to agriculture around Australia.

My questions regarding those loans—they are totally at odds with that MOU statement, however we will take that one on notice ourselves—are: what are the trigger events that will make those loans a reality in the six states and one territory involved? With $60 million, or $30 million a year for two years, why would the Northern Territory, with something under 500 farmers in the whole Territory, have available to it the same amount of loans as New South Wales, shall we say, with somewhere between 35,000 and 40,000 farmers? Why should Tasmania, which is quite obviously the smallest state in Australia, have the same amount available to it as WA, which is quite obviously the biggest state in Australia? That is one question I would like answered: what was the idea behind that particular part of the policy or the loan?

I believe the interest rate has been set but not agreed to yet, at 4½ per cent. Knowing that the Commonwealth will probably borrow, at three per cent or a little more, the money that is going to them on loan, is there a policy about the Commonwealth covering every single cost—in other words, charging 1½ per cent or thereabouts more than the money will cost it? Is there going to be a reckoning on how that will be accounted, and have we got an agreement with any of the states as yet?

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

From the outset, can I acknowledge to the minister, my electorate's appreciation of the announcement in the budget that there will be more rural financial counsellors. That is very important. I know that the member for Calare, the shadow minister, knows how important rural financial counsellors are in these difficult days. And I know you, too, Minister, would appreciate just what a valuable role they play in the bush to help not just farmers but other people who are struggling with rural debt. To help them get through that crisis in their lives is very important.

I would like to ask a couple of questions which might not be generally related to the appropriations, but will certainly affect the budget over the coming 12 months. Firstly, Minister, are you aware that skyrocketing electricity prices are forcing irrigators in the Riverina to turn back the clock and reinstall decades-old diesel pumps on their properties? On-farm power prices have jumped 17 per cent in the past year, in line with residential prices, and close to 80 per cent in the past five years. The Murrumbidgee High Security Irrigators Chief Executive Officer Brian Halse—I think you know him—was quoted in The Area News recently, saying:

Electricity is a huge issue for anyone pumping water and some locals are spending $60,000 or $80,000 a year just on power.

That really goes against the whole thought of carbon pricing that the minister's side of politics would certain push. It just does not make sense that they are using decades-old diesel pumps to get the water to where it is needed.

My other question, which, again, will have an impact on your budget bottom line, is your position on the foreign takeover of GrainCorp. There is, as you know, a significant bid by Archer Daniels Midland to take over the GrainCorp operations, which are so valuable to the wheat and grain growers in the eastern states. It is a significant issue. Certainly in my electorate I have many, many people who are desperately worried that we are going to lose port access and desperately worried that just the cost of getting grain to markets is going to be that much higher, especially with the running down over progressive years of railway lines by successive state governments of every persuasion, though certainly more Labor than coalition.

I would be very interested to know what your thoughts are as to whether the Treasurer should stop this takeover—whether he should say 'No'—because this is such a valuable asset, not just to the grain growers who are shareholders but, indeed, to Australians generally. We used to ride on the sheep's back, but at the same time we used to ride on our wheat and grain profits. But that is not the case any more. If ADM in fact takes over GrainCorp, that will have a significant deleterious effect on our valuable grain crops and on the profits of those annual harvests. I implore you, minister, to do whatever you can to stop this takeover. The Treasurer did nothing when the Spanish food giant Ebro threatened to take over SunRice. SunRice stayed in Australian hands after a very close vote. As you would be well aware, the profits from the rice harvests of the past two years have been such that the Coleambally mill has reopened, which meant many, many jobs to Riverina industry and that wonderful Riverina community.

I know that you are concerned about these issues. You have visited my electorate on a number of occasions and I appreciate that. I know you have spoken to locals in difficult times, but you have been prepared to be open. Whilst I certainly do not think the Murray-Darling Basin Plan has helped with many of my locals' certainty or lack thereof, I know they did appreciate the fact that you had the gumption to front them and explain your government's position. But I do ask you to respond to those two important issues: first of all, the use of diesel for irrigators to use their pumps and, secondly, ADM's potential takeover of GrainCorp.

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

I also thank the minister and government for the new financial counsellors. We have several in Tasmania and they will be, and already are, very much appreciated. Also appreciated is the money for Rural Alive and Well, an organisation that is looking after forest contractors through some of the changes taking place throughout that industry. The farm household allowance will be provided, I understand, from 1 July 2014 to farmers in hardship to replace the exceptional circumstances relief payment and transitional farm family payment. Farmers in Tasmania are on the front line against climate volatility. The national drought reform package is focused on preparing farmers before drought with tools and skills that they need to emerge from it, sustain their enterprises through dry times and help them to survive.

You know, Minister, because you have been there and you have visited my electorate, about some of irrigation schemes that we are putting in place. That will build some drought-proofing for us as well, but we need to develop the new direction for farming in Australia to look toward the dry times so that we can assist the enterprises that are there for the long haul to sustain themselves during those dry times.

We are investing in the future, putting jobs and economic growth first and protecting the important services that Australia relies on. Minister, could you advise if the states and territories have agreed to the drought policy? Why is this a fairer policy than the old one for the new direction in which we are going?

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

I will give advance notice that when my time runs out I will be seeking the call again. I have a few issues to go through. But I think it has been helpful to allow the run of questions because some people wanted to touch on the same areas, so it has allowed me to incorporate those into my answer.

I will flag in particular for the benefit of the member for Riverina the two issues he raised. One arguably goes to either the minister for energy or the minister for climate change and is difficult to deal with in the context of the appropriations here. The second one, which was a reference to the Foreign Investment Review Board, is managed exclusively by the Treasury. I do not begrudge at all the opportunity that he has taken to put his views on the record but there is little in the context of this particular debate other than to say that the government supports investment in agriculture.

First I will deal with the concessional loans for farm businesses in the farm finance package, which have come up a couple times. Concessional loans will give farmers breathing space to focus on growing and improving their farm business. The government is working with the state and Northern Territory governments to make products available across the country via appropriate delivery agencies. We want to take a flexible approach when working with the states and territories to ensure the loans are directed appropriately and are best suited to the farmers in their jurisdiction. As of 29 May this year, since farm finance was announced on 27 April, the department has chaired four teleconferences with senior officials from each jurisdiction. The first was convened on 30 April, at the Commonwealth's request, to discuss the government's announcement.

In addition to these teleconferences there have been many direct discussions with officials, jurisdiction by jurisdiction. However, at this stage we have not resolved signing on to these loans with any of the states. We encourage them to do so. It has been one of the issues that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has been raising in the context of challenges that Queensland graziers and pastoralists are facing at the moment.

Even if you were to accept, which the government does not, the arguments about national parks that are put forward by the Queensland government, opening up national parks deals with a small subset of stock levels in drought affected areas. There needs to be an approach which reaches to all of the people who have stock and who are in a situation of crisis. The loans are one of the tools to be able to do that.

On the issue of national parks, I am obviously aware—speaking on behalf of the minister for agriculture—that there have been calls for national parks in Queensland to be used for grazing for drought affected cattle. While the management of national parks in Queensland lies within their responsibility, many parks may have been established to protect matters of national environmental significance. Under Commonwealth environmental law, actions that have or are likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance require approval.

The words here from the minister say 'from my colleague, Minister Burke' but that was obviously not prepared for me. It will sound weird if I start talking about discussions with myself. The minister I am representing has been talking to me about the question of grazing in national parks. But the administration of environmental law is exclusively one for the environment minister and one where the decisions for the environment minister have to be made strictly according to law, not according to the policy of the government. With that in mind, as I made clear here yesterday, the legal powers that were available under national environmental law to prevent cattle grazing in the Alpine National Park were largely there because there was a heritage decision in place. There is no such heritage decision in the Queensland areas. So the government policy thinks that the approach taken by the Queensland government is ill-advised and also inadequate in terms of the genuine crisis that many farmers are facing, and this carries through to some of the criticisms of farmers who have managed their stock levels very carefully and feel they have now been placed at a disadvantage while neighbours get free adjustment. Others have said, 'Well, it is one thing is there is feed, but if there is no water in these areas they are of limited utility.' We do not feel it is a comprehensive solution in a way, shape or form. It is not the way we approach national parks. Notwithstanding that, any actual intervention would depend on national environmental law, and the powers here are quite different to the powers as they stood in Victoria. (Extension of time granted)

A number of biosecurity issues were raised, in particular the issue of post-entry quarantine. In July 2012 the Commonwealth announced the site acquisition of a 144-hectare parcel of land in Mickleham, Victoria for the construction of a new post-entry quarantine facility. The new facility will consolidate existing animal and plant quarantine services in a single integrated site and will provide Australia with the newest and most advanced technology and operating practices available. The department continued to consult stakeholders during the development of concept designs for the new facility. The project was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works in early 2013. The referral was a critical step in the delivery of the project. The Public Works Committee must approve the proposed works before construction of the facility can proceed. In terms of what progress has been made, in the budget the government announced funding of $379.9 million over seven years for construction and operation of the new facility for high-risk plant and animal inputs. This built on the government's announcement made in the 2011-12 budget when a commitment to fund further development of future post-entry arrangements was made which included detailed design work and procurement activities related to land acquisition along with funds for the maintenance and refurbishment of existing facilities.

Government operated facilities to manage high-risk imported animal and plant species are key component of our biosecurity system. A secure and efficient facility discourages smuggling and reduces biosecurity risk associated with the importation of new genetic material which is necessary for Australian agriculture to maintain competitiveness and productivity. I might add that the issue of whether or not our post-entry quarantine facilities are adequate and up to date has been a very pertinent one in Australia, particularly following the Callinan report into the outbreak of equine influenza. On that occasion where systems had collapsed and the operation of a quarantine facility was not up to scratch we ended up consequently with a number of deeply serious challenges that carried a very high cost. So to be establishing a new post-entry quarantine facility and making sure that the operation of it has a high level of stakeholder engagement is not just a good thing to do, it is actually quite essential to make sure that we are properly able to manage the biosecurity challenges in a country where one of our key strategic advantages is that, compared to other countries, there are many weeds, pests and diseases that we do not have, and we want to keep it that way. When something comes in that has not previously been here, we saw with equine influenza just how bad it can be.

I have covered the national parks issue for the member for Calare. We also had the issue that was raised elsewhere of the national drought reform program itself and the agreement for the states and territories to drought reform. This is something which has been going since 2007 when, in addition to the ministerial council, we started the ministerial forum with state and territory ministers, originally chaired by myself and now chaired by Minister Ludwig. We work together to try to see how we could eliminate the challenges that occurred with waiting for exceptional circumstances declarations and the injustice of lines on maps where you have two farmers side by side facing identical climate circumstances and identical challenges—one received a high level of assistance, the other received nothing.

The Gillard government is delivering on its commitment to reform drought programs. We are moving to a pro-active rather than a reactive system. We want to ensure farmers are able to prepare for challenges and manage risks. No longer will we have to wait until farmers are in crisis before assistance can be offered. This is about helping Australian farmers get back on their feet and prosper and succeed in the future, ultimately delivering a more productive agricultural sector. On 3 May this year the minister signed an agreement with the states and the Northern Territory to formalise National Drought Program Reform. This package focusing on risk management and preparedness includes the Farm Household Allowance, which provides case managers to support farm families as they make decisions about their future. The Farm Management Deposit Scheme and taxation measures including the enhancements to the deposit scheme—announced as part of Farm Finance—a national approach to farm business training, a coordinated and collaborative approach to the provision of social support services, tools and technologies to inform farmer decision making. The agreement outlines the roles and responsibilities for each government in implementing the package from 1 July 2014. The agreement also includes a framework that will guide government decisions to increase or introduce support when conditions are declining while still meeting the reform objectives.

A number of members raised the Rural Financial Counselling Service and I thank them for doing so. The Rural Financial Counselling Service program continues to provide free and confidential financial counselling services to farmers, fishers and small businesses who are in financial difficulty and need support to manage the challenges of change and adjustment. Rural financial counsellors are well placed to refer clients to GPs and other government and non-government service providers. The Australian government has announced additional funding for the service for two financial years to 30 June 2015. An amount of $5.9 million will provide 17 additional full-time equivalent rural financial counsellors. Until implementation of the new Farm Household Allowance on 1 July 2014, the government is continuing to provide the Transitional Farm Family Payment. Farming families can apply for up to 12 months' household support paid at the same rate as Newstart and the Transitional Farm Family Payment is available to eligible farmers regardless of location or the reason they are experiencing financial hardship.

For those issues, we have the breakdown of most of what has been covered. I might sit down so that the shadow minister has an opportunity to put a couple of extra things on the record.

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

Am I to assume that the question about the departmental rental lease is being taken on notice? I assume that that is so. Should my question about the triggers for the underwriting of loans becoming available be taken on notice as well? I do have one other question about SPC Ardmona in the Murray-Goulburn area. What input has the department had on the value and importance of the stone fruit industry on the Murray and in the Goulburn Valley and the impact on the community of the loss of SPC Ardmona? Is the department supporting industry by providing information and support to other departments investigating the WTO anti-dumping and safeguard provisions? It is fine if you take those on notice, but I am particularly concerned to have responses to the earlier questions.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take those issues on in good faith. The shadow minister raised very serious issues relating to SPC. There is good reason the agriculture minister acted quickly in referring them to the trade minister and making him aware of those. The level of concern is there.

Some extra information has arrived. The company wrote to the Prime Minister on 29 April requesting that the government impose safeguard measures in the form of increased tariffs on retail sized canned tomato and multiserve fruit products. The department has reviewed the request to determine whether there is a possible case to impose provisional and/or full safeguard measures. It was on the basis of that review that the agricultural minister referred the issue to the minister for trade and to the Treasurer. I understand that the minister for trade and the Treasurer will consider the agriculture minister's recommendation in consultation with the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and Minister for Climate Change, Industry and Innovation. The government will work to make its decision on this matter as quickly as possible. If it is determined that a possible case for safeguard measures exists the government would refer the request to a competent authority, currently the Productivity Commission, to conduct an investigation in accordance with WTO rules. The competent authority would recommend whether measures should be imposed.

I am mindful of the time. What I would like to do on the remaining issues is suggest that the minister's office will be in direct contact with the shadow minister's office to work out the appropriate form of providing answers to those questions, whether it be in writing, through me or through the Notice Paper. I will ask the minister's office to make contact with the shadow minister as soon as possible.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Debate adjourned.