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

The 2013-14 budget not only continues to roll out federal Labor's Nation Building Program but begins identifying future funding priorities. This budget continues the achievements of the first phase of the program, with the final instalment of $5.7 billion in 2013-14. Already we have doubled the federal roads budget. We have increased investment in rail tenfold. We have committed more to urban public transport since 2007 than all previous governments combined since Federation. In this budget we announced more additional investment in urban public transport than any previous budget since Federation.

The budget announced $24 billion for the next phase of the Nation Building Program, which commences in 2014-15, taking the total program to a record $60 billion. This is the largest capital works program in the nation's history, and the new projects announced in the budget build on this. In the budget, we provided $715 million towards the construction of the Brisbane Cross River Rail, and $3 billion for the Melbourne Metro. Both of these projects have been identified by Infrastructure Australia as priority projects of national significance that are ready to proceed.

But these mega transport projects are on a scale that also requires private sector contributions, so we are taking a new innovative approach which is structured around an availability payment model to attract private sector investment. We are also determined to engage with the private sector when it comes to urban road infrastructure, particularly in our biggest city of Sydney. That is why we allocated $400 million to finally get the 'missing link' between the F3 and M2 to go to market within months. We brought forward $5 million into the current financial year in order to assist with taking that project to market.

Federal Labor's investment in Australia's vital infrastructure extends well beyond the limits of our cities. Regional Australians are also big winners of the Nation Building Program, with almost two-thirds of all funding being invested in regional Australia. The program is funding a number of highway upgrade packages vital to our regions, such as the $4.1 billion 10-year package to upgrade and maintain the Bruce Highway. The budget also announced $500 million for a 10-year capital works program along the Midland Highway in Tasmania and $307 million for the Great Northern Highway in Western Australia.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be very pleased with the $317 million allocated for the Warrrego Highway in Queensland. Might I add: more money than National Party ministers ever allocated to the Warrego Highway in Queensland was allocated in this budget. There was $257.5 million provided for the duplication of the Princes Highway West. The budget also provides $2 billion to continue important transport safety and improvement programs, including $1.8 billion over five years for network maintenance, and an additional $100 million over five years for the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program. In addition, the budget provided $5 million to assist the Australian shipping industry to meet its future workforce training needs as well as almost $10 million for urgent safety upgrades at remote airstrips across Australia.

Federal Labor understands the importance of investing in land transport infrastructure in terms of national productivity and the liveability of our cities. We have the processes right. Now, in this budget, as well as Cross River Rail and the Melbourne Metro, we funded the two managed motorways programs in Melbourne that were identified by Infrastructure Australia. That means that all 15 projects—15 out of 15—that have been identified by Infrastructure Australia have received funding by this government. We have the process right. We have put the dollars in, the investment in, to create jobs and growth, not just now but into the future.

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

Once again we have listened to the over-the-top rhetoric of the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. We have been listening to that for quite some time. However, this is the budget where it all comes unstuck, because the reality is that, in spite of the minister's claims, this budget actually predicts a $1.2 billion cut per year for road and raid funding under their so-called nation building 2 program, which is set to commence on 1 July 2014. A $36 billion program has on the government's own figures become a $24 billion program. Once more, even that figure is probably overblown. The minister makes big announcements about things such as the Melbourne Metro link project. He talked again just now about it being a $3 billion project. What he did not say is that there is only $75 million in the next four years to actually fund it.

He was boasting about WestConnex being a $1.8 billion project—although we all know the Prime Minister has put conditions on that project which make it absolutely impossible for it to ever proceed—but there is only $400 million actually provided. There is not $1.8 billion—it is only $400 million. And, since the government is insisting that there be no tolls, there is about a 75 per cent gap in the funding for a project of that nature.

The reality is that there will only be $2 billion spent on the entire national highway network across the country in the first year of nation building 2 program. This is just typical of Labor's approach in other areas, where they announce big programs but they are not funded—like the NDIS, like Gonski. They announce what sound like big amounts of money, but the money is not provided. When you look at these kinds of investments, we are left with significant gaps in what is actually going to be able to be achieved. What is even more alarming is that the government seems to be manipulating the figures to make the $24 billion look as big as it is.

For instance, the department confirmed in Senate estimates last week that almost $4 billion of untied local road grants for local government is included now as a subprogram in Nation Building 2. I ask the minister, is that $4 billion included in his $24 billion announcement? In the past, that money has been dealt with in other ways. But this time the department has said that this $4 billion funding, the traditional funding that goes to local government for roads, is now part of their nation-building strategy. When you look at the program and realise that $1.5 billion of that $24 billion is coming out of the Building Australia Fund—created entirely by the previous Howard government—and when you realise that there is $2 billion being transferred out of the mining tax, the real amount allocated for road funding over the next five-year program is not $24 billion; it is about $17 billion. This will be the smallest program that we have had in this nation for a very long time in real terms.

The minister again talked about their $4.1 billion program for the Bruce Highway. We have actually had candidates out there announcing projects—including a member who I notice is in the chamber—yet the funding is not profiled in any way in the budget announcement. When asked about this in Senate estimates, the minister's department said the profiles were not available yet we have got candidates announcing that these projects are going to be built while the profile for the funding is not announced.

Of the $4.1 billion that the government says is committed to the Bruce Highway, $1.7 billion has been previously announced and $1.1 billion will not be available until after 2019—a lot of big numbers but, when you look at them, they do not seem to add up.

Since I will only get one chance to speak in this debate—because the government always manages to talk these estimates out these days—let me talk about another issue, the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal where, quite extraordinarily, the government has announced that there are to be four new board members appointed to the terminal, but the department was unable to give the names of these members during estimates. So I am now informed that these four board members have actually attended board meetings yet their names are still a secret. The government has not announced their names yet these people are already attending board meetings. This seems to be remarkable. At the department's own estimates just a few days ago, they were unable to name those people. (Time expired)

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the shadow minister's comments, the minister made an unparliamentary interjection. I would ask him to withdraw.

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

I am not aware. I did not hear an unparliamentary comment but that does not mean to say that one might not have been made. The minister would assist the chamber if at least—

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

It will put it on the record if I withdraw it.

An honourable member: You are soft as.

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

No, the minister has withdrawn. The minister has the call.

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

The shadow minister made some extraordinary statements during that contribution. One was that the Building Australia Fund was somehow a creation of the Howard government. It was created through legislation moved by me as the minister as part of the creation of Infrastructure Australia. It is a part of the infrastructure Australia setup, something that they never did. They never set up a process and indeed they opposed the Infrastructure Australian legislation. It is complete nonsense from those opposite.

He went on to pretend that programs that are under construction with real money creating real jobs, creating real improvements in infrastructure do not exist. He should go to Rockhampton, have a look at the Yeppen roundabout, have a look at the duplication of the bridges that are under construction right now. It is not an apparition; it is real. It exists. There is steel and concrete, and there are workers and cranes working right now on the Bruce Highway.

This shadow minister was once the minister and he described the Cooroy to Curra section of the Bruce Highway as the worst section of road in Australia. He was the transport minister, it is in his electorate and he did nothing about it. Well, we have for one section of it. We promised it, funded it, built it and opened it. He did not play a role in any of those activities. I say to the shadow minister that next week I will be turning a sod on construction in his electorate. Come along—Cooroy to Curra section A, funded by us. Come along.

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

You haven't invited me. You don't invite me.

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

You know full well that the—

Mr Truss interjecting—

You might not. You are so hopeless that you might not know that the state government—the Newman government—and your mate Jeff Seeney organise the invites. So ring up Jeff. Get yourself on the list. He might not know you exist. The state government will be looking after the sod-turning on Cooroy to Curra next Wednesday. Come along. He can say that that is not real as well, because he has gone out there and said—even when we fund projects in his own electorate—that it is not happening. Well, drive on the road. You can, because one section of it is open and the next section of construction we are funding, brought forward into this financial year, will commence construction.

Then he went on to criticise the funding that we have provided for all of these programs, including the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal. The Moorebank Intermodal Terminal is absolutely vital for Sydney's infrastructure, ensuring that we take 3,300 trucks off the road every day. You know what the opposition did?

Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—

You see, it is really not that complex. You have a port and then you have the city of Sydney, and then you have an intermodal terminal. Here is what an intermodal does—and maybe the member for Hughes can think about this, because he has campaigned against it. His own party are supporting it, but he has campaigned against it, showing how disingenuous and unfair they are. The state government support it. Your opposition support it, because it will take trucks off the road, because you have freight moving onto rail. It is not that complex: trucks off the road, freight onto rail, rather than going through all of the streets, including in the electorate of Hughes, in order to get to its destination. The freight infrastructure investment that we have done will take nine hours off the journey on the East West Link and seven hours off the journey from Melbourne to Brisbane. Let me tell you: what he does not say is that the land and the site were chosen by the Howard government. They chose the site. Since then the coalition campaigned against it at the last election and now they are for it again. If he is fair dinkum, he will say at the next election campaign that they are actually for this vital project. We issued a release with all of the board members on the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal, as we do with all board appointments. (Time expired)

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

I call the member for Gippsland. The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the member for Capricornia was on her feet before last time, and she beat the jump again this time—

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

That is true.

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

She has been ignored again by the chair.

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

I was going from one side to the other.

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

It doesn't work like that.

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

We had one—now one from here. Then him. It goes that way. Otherwise our people don't get a go.

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

Exactly.

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

The member for Gippsland will resume his seat.

An honourable member: Unnatural!

No, no.

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

I appreciate that.

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

You're a good man!

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

The point is that the minister is always going to be jumping in from this side.

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

No-one has the call at the moment, Member for Capricornia. It would also assist, in the limited hours that are available in these portfolios, if the members asked the question and the minister responded in more of a summing-up way. I think that would be useful and would allow more questions to be asked of the minister. But I am only suggesting that, not directing that. The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to. I call the member for Capricornia.

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

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to speak about this very important portfolio and what it is doing for the Central Queensland region. I was just thinking that we are not even 20 minutes into this consideration in detail and I have already lost track of the number of projects that the minister has talked about and the amount of funding that is in discussion here this morning.

I think back to consideration in detail in the nine years I spent in opposition when I would come in and be part of listening to the minister's counterpart in the Howard years, and I cannot really imagine what he would have talked about. But I know what I would have been talking about: I would have been talking about what was not happening on the Bruce Highway and what was needed in terms of this very important piece of infrastructure for the state of Queensland and indeed the entire nation.

We have heard many times from this government, and we speak about it with great pride and conviction, that since coming to power the Labor government has spent four times as much—the minister will correct me if I get this wrong—on the Bruce Highway in half the time compared to the entire spend in the time of the Howard government. That is a great figure to quote but what does it really mean when we talk about that level of investment in this very important highway? I can tell the House, and constituents of Capricornia could tell the House, that it means basically constant nonstop roadworks setting about greatly improving the Bruce Highway both north and south of Rockhampton. Go south of Gladstone and you get to the Calliope crossroads, an enormous project underway there. In the northern part of my electorate there is the southern access to Mackay, which is an extremely busy and important section of road which really doubles as the Bruce Highway but also a very vital connection between the community of Sarina and the industrial area of Hay Point, the massive coal terminal, and Paget to the south of Mackay. We have duplicated that southern access to Mackay. It was done within a couple of years of us taking government. Work improving that section of the highway continues with further overtaking lanes between Sarina and Mackay.

Very important is the project the minister has already referred to, and you just have to laugh when the shadow minister talks about, 'They have announced this and what does it mean.' The minister has invited the shadow minister to please come to Rockhampton, although if the shadow minister comes to Rockhampton it could get very embarrassing, because so far we have had the shadow Treasurer and the opposition leader twice come to Rockhampton and fail to make a commitment, refuse to make a commitment for this extremely important project for the people of Central Queensland. This project is fixing up the Yeppen floodplains, finding a solution to this section of the Bruce Highway which we know from very painful experience in 2011 and before that in 1991 can be cut in times of flood, which cuts off Rockhampton and the entire northern half of the state for weeks at a time, causing huge disruption to our local economy, huge disruption to very important businesses right around Central Queensland and beyond. So there is work going on right now on the duplication and lifting of the Yeppen Bridge, and that is going to include very important improvements to the congestion for people having to travel in and out from Gracemere every day, something that is very important to our local area.

What comes next is what is required to really boost the flood immunity of that stretch of road. I would like the minister to talk a little more about what is in the budget for the Yeppoon South project. Even more than that, because there is so much to talk about in terms of Bruce Highway improvements, I would like the minister to talk about the Bruce Highway funding package in the budget.

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

In terms of the Bruce Highway I really want to pay tribute to the member for Capricornia over her time representing that important part of Queensland for the work that she has done. There is no greater tribute to her work and her legacy as the member, given that she has announced her retirement at the next election, than the work that has happened around the southern approaches to Rockhampton. In this budget we have brought forward funding to make sure that this southern approach can be fixed. We brought it forward to the next financial year. This goes on top of the other work that is occurring.

Already right now under construction are: the Calliope Crossroads project; the Bruce and Capricorn highways; the Yeppen roundabout; the southern approach to Mackay; the Burdekin River bridge; flattening and straightening the Bruce Highway over Cardwell Range; projects associated with the Burdekin Road safety audit; the southern approach to Cairns—where I will also be next week—straightening and widening the highway from Cabbage Tree Creek to Carman Road and across Back Creek Range; straightening the highway just south of Gin Gin; and straightening and raising the Bruce Highway between Sandy Corner and Collinson's Lagoon.

We will shortly begin the upgrade of the Pumicestone Road interchange, part of a $195 million contribution from the federal government. Over the next year, in 2013-14, we will have the Cooroy to Curra section A construction commencing with the sod turned next week; the duplication of the highway just south of Townsville between Vantassel Street and Cluden; the construction of the new interchange and replacing the existing intersections between Roy's Road and Bells Creek Road, part of a $195 million contribution; and construction of the final section of the Townsville Ring Road between Shaw Road and Mt Low.

These are the sorts of projects that have led the LNP member for Herbert to say:

I will give Labor a pat on the back and say they have spent more in their four or five years on the Bruce highway than we did before.

That is what local members who are rational say about our contribution to the Bruce Highway. There has been a total funding commitment of $5.7 billion since we came to office compared with the former government's $1.3 billion. Even those arithmetically challenged should recognise 5.7 is a lot more than 1.3. It is not just a figure though because what that means is that there are real jobs as a result of the contributions that have been made.

It compares favourably across the board because we heard before the shadow minister dismiss the $24-billion figure that we have announced already for Nation Building 2. I have no doubt there is more to come in future budgets as state governments and territory governments submit properly funded projects. He said that is a terrible figure. The former government's big trumpet under AusLink was $11.4 billion. The shadow minister says it was more than that. Maybe they got it wrong because they are not real good with numbers. But $11.4 billion was the headline in their press release for Australia's roads and railways. That was their contribution. Twenty-four is more than 11 and—that is moving forward as we receive further projects.

What we know is that investment in infrastructure produces a return in productivity, a return that leads to higher growth, a return that leads therefore to higher revenues and a return that produces outcomes in economic growth and jobs. It is the driver of our national economy. We can invest in two things: physical capital and human capital. That is why we regard infrastructure and skills of the two parts—investing in people through education and training, and investing in nation-building infrastructure. (Time expired)

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

It is always fascinating for members on this side to receive lectures about supposedly not been good with numbers when the member for Lilley has presided over the worst deficits in Australian history. I would like to take the minister to his opening comments where he referred to the future funding priorities in his budget. In particular I want to refer to the Princes Highway, not only in my electorate but also along the south coast of New South Wales.

The minister is well aware of both my concerns and the concerns of the member for Eden-Monaro about the state of the Princes Highway. Without wishing to be political on the issue, I think the highway between Sydney and Sale has probably been neglected and ignored by governments of both political persuasions. In fact, some parts of that highway are in a deplorable state. I do acknowledge that some work has been undertaken in the Eden-Monaro area, the Bega bypass and other areas under The National Road Network as an off-network project.

My particular interest, Minister, relates to the duplication project, which has been jointly funded between Traralgon and Sale, with $140 million from the federal government and $35 million from the state. The minister would be aware that the current funding for this project is set to expire with the completion of the stage between Stammers Road and Minniedale Road. I think the minister would be aware of that. There is concern within the community, within Latrobe City Council, Wellington Shire Council and the general public about whether future funding opportunities exist for that duplication work. I understand that the cost of the project is in the order of $500 million and that $175 million has been allocated to it. So I would be interested to know: where does the Princes Highway East, Traralgon to Sale, fit in the government's future funding priorities?

The second question I would like to ask the minister relates to an issue he may well be able to clarify for me—and that is, the $20 million reprofiling that occurred, due to the EPBC Act issue, around the time of Queensland floods. I know the minister is aware of this issue. I am hoping to get some clarity about whether that funding has now flowed through to the actual project.

Perhaps more generally—and I invite the minister's comments on this particular issue—in terms of road-funding activities across Australia, I am particularly concerned about the amount of the road budget that is being redirected into issues relating to things such as the EPBC Act. The way in which we have been forced to move roads out of road reserves because of EPBC Act intervention, I think, is a concern for this government and future governments.

From my understanding of the EPBC Act, it was really meant to relate to issues of national significance, yet we are seeing local highway duplication projects being moved out of the road reserve onto private property at significant expense to the Commonwealth and the relevant state governments. I would invite the minister's comments: how significant an issue is this for our nation? How much road money allocated to the transport department is being diverted into these environmental issues, which are sometimes quite spurious? I would invite your comments on that, Minister.

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

I thank the member for Gippsland for his considered approach to infrastructure. I acknowledge that he is one member on the other side of the House who genuinely makes representations on behalf of his electorate and who plays a constructive role in the putting forward of that funding.

I note that the member has acknowledged that this is the first time that significant funding, $140 million from the federal Labor government and $35 million from the Victorian government, has gone into this section of the Princes Highway East. The current schedule of works is scheduled to be completed in late 2015. We have done exactly what we said we would do: duplicate the highway between Traralgon and Sale. I acknowledge that I would like more to be done and acknowledge the representations of both the member for Gippsland and the member for Eden-Monaro about these issues.

At the other end, the Bega bypass is currently under construction, fully funded, 100 per cent, by the Commonwealth government. Not one cent has come from the New South Wales government. However, that will not stop them from turning up at media opportunities, should they arise in the future.

Labor has done substantially more than the former government did. That is not hard, because they did not put a cent into this section of the highway. There is more to be done. The current process for Nation Building Program 2 is that we have asked all of the state and territory governments to make submissions as to their funding priorities on the road and rail networks. I sat down on a number of occasions with the Victorian government, the Victorian minister, and worked out some initial priorities in terms of the major projects for Nation Building Program 2 that the Victorian government wanted. Part of that was the Melbourne Metro project that, in Minister Mulder's own words, is the No. 1 priority for Victoria. We worked out funding for that project—$3 billion from each level of government plus an availability payment model, as I said in my opening remarks—but the Victorian government appear to be stepping away from that. I must say we have had difficulties getting any cost-benefit analysis from the Victorian government for road projects such as the east-west tunnel. Their proposals talk about it beginning in the east, and there is a question about what the appropriate model is. I certainly believe in funding both road and rail projects, but it is beyond me why the Victorian government are refusing to submit this cost-benefit analysis or any business plan to the federal government, my department or to Infrastructure Australia.

I indicate to the member for Gippsland that as part of those discussions we also talked about savings that exist on current Victorian projects that were part of NB1. We have not received from the Victorian government any proposals as to where their priorities would be. But I say to the member that I would be happy to continue to work with him in a constructive way on Nation Building Program 2. We indicated very publicly, on budget night—the shadow minister seems to be surprised by this—that these are instalments for specific projects that we have included in the program.

I am a minister who argues for additional funding for infrastructure. The former government seemed to have transport ministers who just rolled over for the Liberal Party partners and did not seem to actually be able to win an argument in their party room, in the cabinet or wherever. There was a distinct lack of funding. Indeed, the last time the coalition were in office they cut $2 billion from road funding in their first budget, and their budgets never recovered from those cuts.

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

The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to. Given that there are a lot of members who want to ask questions, for the convenience of the House, if members on my right could ask questions seriatim and then not speak for so long, you will get your questions in and the minister can respond. Members on my left, I take it that the Leader of the Nationals and the honourable member for Dawson are going to ask questions? Okay. I will lead off with the member for Gellibrand.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will ask a very brief question in order to enable my colleagues to raise some of their issues, because the minister has touched briefly on the issue that I wanted to ask him about, which is for him to address further this question of infrastructure, particularly in the western suburbs of Melbourne. The lack of funding for roads by the coalition is true not just if you look at spending from our government compared with the previous, Howard government but also if you look at the last 20 or 30 years: the big infrastructure projects were funded by Labor governments.

Minister Albanese, I am wondering if you can talk a little bit more about the latest investment in the Western Ring Road, the western suburbs of Melbourne being one of the fastest growing communities in the country; and how they complement our investments in regional rail and the latest investments in the Melbourne Metro. I, perhaps cheekily, put on the record that, if the east-west tunnel—as others persist in calling it—is to go ahead, I would like to call it the west-east tunnel! I do believe, given where the particular population pressures are, that, if it were to go ahead, consideration should be given to building it from the western end rather than the eastern end. That has a long way to travel, as the minister mentioned, when work has not already been done by the state government—and you might want to address that too, Minister. But I understand my colleague is going to ask you some questions to handle together.

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

I thank the member for Gellibrand for her brevity.

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

I take this opportunity to ask the minister some questions in relation to expenditure on transport and infrastructure in the budget appropriations. There have been some great investments in Tasmania under this Labor government—about $1.9 billion. That has been great for lifting the infrastructure which is so urgently needed and for creating great jobs. The electorate of Lyons is 50 per cent of the state of Tasmania and has most of the great highway between the south and the north. I am often referred to as 'the honest broker in the middle' and it is a title I enjoy wearing. The minister might like to outline the $500 million announced in the latest package for work on the Midland Highway and also the Launceston bypass. Planning for the new Bridgewater bridge is continuing. There is the upgrading of the Mona Vale and St. Peters Pass, one of the oldest passes in Tasmania. There is quite a bit of activity around Mona Vale—I see there is a cherry farm in that area—and between Mangalore and Bagdad. In the north towards Launceston, just past my electorate office in Perth the highway is being duplicated and upgraded between Perth and the Launceston airport roundabout. They are urgently needed upgrades, which have been put aside for too long.

When you come to Tasmania you can see much work going on in infrastructure, with all the water pipes for the Midlands Irrigation Scheme sitting beside the highway. Down in the Colebrook sportsground you can see the rail sleepers for the upgrading of the rail at Rhyndaston and there are plenty of bulldozers. With the great work done on the Brighton bypass, that town is now in the biggest growth area in Tasmania. So Minister, I ask you how you see those areas and that infrastructure coming together with the $1.9 million this government has put into infrastructure in Tasmania.

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

I thank members for their questions. Firstly, the member for Gellibrand is very conscious of the federal government's investment of $13.5 billion into Victorian infrastructure. That is a shift from $89 per head to more than $200 per Victorian. So we have more than doubled the infrastructure budget for Victoria. Concerning specific projects, we are currently investing more than $3.2 billion in the regional rail link, including through the member's electorate. Right now, there are 3,500 Australians working directly on that project as a result of that investment. Geelong, Bendigo, Ballarat and Melbourne are all benefitting. It is a very exciting project, one I have visited on a number of occasions and one which I note the federal Leader of the Opposition did not even know existed—an extraordinary proposition—when he said on Melbourne radio that the federal government does not invest in any urban rail projects, except for the Moreton Bay rail link. It is an exciting project.

The M80 has also been an absolutely critical project. We have committed some $900 million to the upgrade of the Western and the Metropolitan ring-roads. In this budget, we have added a further $525 million for that project, which is absolutely vital for the efficiency of the Victorian road system. It is an absolutely vital project for Melbourne. The important thing about the east-west—

Honourable member interjecting—

or west-east, as the member said—

Honourable member interjecting—

That is why you have a business plan; it is to work out issues—for example, with the West Gate Bridge: what is the priority for where the link should begin? We want to see it. The Victorian government say that they have got it, but they will not show it to anyone. It is quite an extraordinary proposition. I think our record in Victorian infrastructure stands in stark contrast to our predecessor's.

In Tasmania, we have invested $1.9 billion. This, again, is almost a doubling of infrastructure spending in Tasmania. In this budget, the Midland Highway package is particularly important for the electorate of the member for Lyons. There is planning for a future Launceston bypass, duplicating the Perth to Breadalbane section, and dedicated safety upgrades at Mona Vale, St Peter's Pass, and between Mangalore and Bagdad, as well as activities to advance the Bridgewater Bridge. The Freight Rail Revitalisation project is also absolutely vital. It includes replacing approximately 290 kilometres of old rail track. This creates jobs in manufacturing as well as in the specific work that takes place there. Also, there are the commitments to the Brooker Highway, the Domain Highway, the Huon Highway and the Tasman Highway ramps. All of this adds up to a major benefit.

Of course, the opposition have said that they can duplicate the Midland Highway for $400 million. That is just a nonsense. We have committed $500 million. We are not pretending that we will be able to duplicate the whole highway. The opposition pluck figures from nowhere. It is bit like the construction of the Hunter Expressway, which is now underway, at $1.65 billion. When the coalition said that they would do something about the expressway, they did not actually advance the project. In 2004, they said the costing was $382 million. By 2007, they said it was $1.2 billion. They just make up these figures as they go along. They hold out false hope and pretend that they can build things with an amount that they simply cannot. We have invested real dollars into real projects that are making a real difference in terms of costing. The whole duplication has been costed at $2.7 billion. That is more than $400 million. Those opposite need to stop the sort of nonsense that they go on with. We have invested real money in those real projects.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker, I have three issues to put to the minister. The first is in relation to the upgrade of the Bruce Highway from Vantassel Street in Townsville to the Flinders Highway. The minister would know of it: $110 million was announced in the budget for this project. It was certainly something that the government was going to remove altogether to pay for the flood reconstruction in Queensland, and only after campaigning by the Liberal-National coalition was it reinstated in the budget. That was a good outcome. I have written to the minister, and I believe that the Townsville City Council has written to the minister—and perhaps the minister has also received correspondence from the Townsville Turf Club—about some issues that the community have with the upgrade of that road. I am just wondering whether the minister is aware of that and what the minister is going to do about those concerns.

The second issue I refer to concerns the Bruce Highway. The minister and, I believe, the Prime Minister came to Rockhampton to announce a supposed $4.1 billion Bruce Highway package. We later found out that roughly $1.76 billion of that was already announced funding. This leaves around $2.4 billion to be spent over the next 10 years.

The Department of Main Roads in Queensland has a Bruce Highway action plan where they say that $6 billion over the next 10 years is needed for the highest priority projects on that highway. The $2.4 billion that you have allocated over the next 10 years is not even half of what is needed. The minister will probably respond that all of that $1.76 billion was announced after the Bruce Highway action plan came into effect, but that answer will only really fly if the $1.76 billion in funding that has already been committed out of that $4.1 billion is for projects that are actually contained within the Bruce Highway action plan. So my second question to the ministry is whether he can assure me and indeed the House that out of that $4.1 billion that has been allocated, including the $1.76 billion that has already been allocated, all of it is going to projects that are identified in the Bruce Highway action plan. The following question is, if there cannot be an assurance there, what projects are we going to miss out on? Will the Haughton River Bridge be something we miss out on, the upgrade of Sandy Gully near Bowen, the planning for Beganga Plains in the Whitsundays be something we miss out on?

In relation to the ring road, there was a visit by the Prime Minister on 24 April to Mackay and she announced that the ring road would be funded by the government. There were no details but she told reporters that in the budget the ring road would be included. We have got the budget before us and there is no line item mentioning the ring road whatsoever. There is no mention of the ring road in the budget. There have been indications made to journalists by the Prime Minister, by the minister and indeed by the Labor candidate in the electorate of Dawson that the ring road funding will be available in the 2013-14 financial year. I want a clear answer from the minister, a yes or a no: will the ring road funding be made available in the 2013-14 financial year?

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

I am very pleased to get this question from the member opposite. It seems he does not understand budgets and he does not understand infrastructure the way that it happens. The Department of Main Roads Queensland, his Tory colleagues, run the projects in regard to the Vantassel Street issue that he raises, in terms of that upgrade. The process of the implementation, the management of the projects is done by the Queensland LNP government. Okay? It is not that hard, mate. You should be able to work that out. So in terms of issues with regard to specific details of construction we provide money to the Department of Main Roads, you have a contract between the federal and state governments and they then manage the project.

With regard to the funding that is in the budget, he also does not seem to understand that what you have is line items in the budget of funding for the Bruce Highway. He has produced some ads on the Mackay ring road, which is bizarre because of the quotes he uses to say what the promise is. I read from his ad. He said that the Prime Minister said funding would be sourced from a federal infrastructure scheme known as Nation Building 2. That is the commitment of the Prime Minister.

Mr Christensen interjecting—

According to you. This is your ad. The broken promise he says is Infrastructure Australia are now in a position to release a preliminary schedule of new projects to be funded and delivered over the five-year life of our next nation building program, which is Nation Building 2. We said we would fund it under Nation Building 2. Your ad says Nation Building 2—

Mr Christensen interjecting—

Nation Building 2, you nong. It is in the ad that you produced. 2014-15—

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

Minister—

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

I withdraw. That is a compliment. 2014-15 to 2018-19. It is there in your ad. You cannot help some people. We already have funding to progress the planning. Funding is already there for the community consultation for the Mackay ring road, which I announced in Mackay, which closes next month.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's already underway, mate.

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

We're funding it, you nong! We're funding it!

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

Minister, will you not use that language. Withdraw.

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

I withdraw. It is not that complex, mate, and you should talk to the member for Gippsland about the way that he approaches infrastructure investment in his seat. He makes approaches, as a member of the National Party. He gives credit when it is there; he says, 'This is a good thing for my electorate,' and he asks for more. That is what he does. That is what a good local member does.

You have got money for planning—$10 million, and not a cent from the state government but totally funded by us, to do the planning. We have released, now, for community consultation, the proposed route. That is out there. As to the community consultation, that funding has already been provided under Nation Building 1. We have a program for the Mackay ring road: planning in Nation Building 1, and then construction in Nation Building 2. That is what the Prime Minister said. That is what is there.

And in yesterday's state budget, 85 per cent of the $590 million the Queensland government said was being committed to the Bruce Highway is funding from us—85 per cent is from the federal government.

Mr Christensen interjecting—

And you have not promised a zack, a cent, of funding for the Bruce Highway, but you come in here and get critical about funding for your electorate! You are one of the only members of parliament I have ever seen in the entire time I have been here, 17 years, who have complained about funding being in your electorate. You have campaigned against it, and you need to do your job. (Time expired)

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

We have just a few minutes left. The honourable member for Robertson has the call.

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

Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

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

If we have a quick question and a quick answer, we will be on time.

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

It will indeed be a quick question. I want to note, in the minister's comments today, not just the significant amounts of money that are being invested, and not just the vision and a deep understanding of investment for the benefit of the nation, for our productivity and our future, but the constant awareness of the reality that these projects create jobs.

I come from a family steeped in construction. The first photographs I have of me, Minister, are of me sitting on top of a D9, a great big bulldozer, when my father was helping build the Bradfield Highway. And I was delighted to climb onto a Hitachi excavator in the electorate just last week for the announcement of the Gosford passing loops and that $146 million project.

But my questions go particularly today to the F3-M2, because this is a critical piece of infrastructure, and also to the widening of the exits and sections of the F3, which will improve not only the safety of people from the Central Coast in travelling to and from Sydney but also their lifestyle, by helping them to be able to get home. So this is part of a great national investment, and I would like to hear more from the Minister about the F3-M2.

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

I thank the honourable member. The honourable member for Petrie has the call but it should be a quick question.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a very quick question, Deputy Speaker. I am very interested to hear from the Minister what further investments there are in my electorate of Petrie on the Moreton Bay rail link, something that was promised for 102 years and which took this federal Labor government to make happen; it is important that that money keeps being committed in this year's budget. But also I am interested to know if the state government is fulfilling its commitments. Also I am interested in the Gateway Motorway upgrade, which is critical to the whole of the north side of Brisbane. But so is the Cross River Rail. I am very interested to hear what the commitments are of this federal Labor government.

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

To wrap up this series, the F3 to M2 is an absolutely vital project. It effectively will be the Sydney bypass. It means that vehicles can go from the south, head north via the M7 and M2 and on to what has been the missing link. It is a vital project. We sat down constructively with the New South Wales government and with Transurban and got this done. Without the federal government's $400-million investment, it simply would not have happened. The previous government did lots of studies but no action. On top of that we have the F3 upgrades we announced with the Prime Minister and the member for Robertson. It will make a huge difference to the Central Coast.

It appears that the Queensland state government is against investment in Brisbane because, in the budget they handed down yesterday, they failed to put any money into the Gateway North project at all. They have only put $5 million into the next section of the Ipswich motorway and they failed to put any funding at all into the Cross River rail project, which is absolutely vital in dealing with congestion. Indeed they have come up with quite an innovative plan.

A new rail crossing across the river would ensure that people not just in Brisbane but people on the Sunshine Coast and on the Gold Coast and everywhere in between could benefit. Four new rail stations were also envisaged. But after writing to us and making a number of requests—all of which were agreed to—and after exchanging letters in writing about this project, they walked away from it under pressure from the federal coalition.

The Queensland state government have come up with another unique and innovative plan. They plan to rip the seats out of the existing trains and make people stand on the train so they can squeeze more people in. I am sure they will have an employment project just like you see in Tokyo whereby people with gloves will be charged with pushing people, cramming them like sardines, on to the trains.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

As member the for Moreton suggested, that might be stage 2 of the solution from the Queensland state government.

What we now know about the Moreton Bay regional rail link is that all contracts which have not been entered into on public transport projects are under threat from the federal coalition should they be elected. The Cross River rail project was first promised in the Queensland parliament in 1895. The whole of the next century went through without a commitment. It took the current federal Labor government, largely due to the campaign by the member for Petrie over and over again, to make this into a reality. It has begun but I am very concerned that the project is under threat because of the statements on the record from the coalition, which is they do not believe in any investment in public transport. To quote the Leader of the Opposition, they should 'stick to their knitting', which consists of minor road funding in marginal electorates. It was what the record was previously. There should be no funding.

They and the Leader of the National Party have made it very clear that they do not believe in sticking to commitments where contracts have not been entered into. They have made it very clear that is their position. We know in spite of the fact that there are so many people on the record, including the Premier of Queensland and the transport minister, supporting the Cross River rail project but it is not going ahead. I think other projects would be under threat as well. The only way to ensure proper infrastructure funding for South-East Queensland as well as for the whole of regional Queensland, including the Bruce Highway, is with the re-election of the Labor government.(Time expired)

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

I thank honourable members and ministers for their contributions. As the debate on the Infrastructure and Transport portfolio has concluded, I propose to put the question.

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

Just before you do that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I table the ad placed by the member for Dawson. It is such a cracker of an ad! I am prepared to table a coalition ad because it is so absurd.

Proposed expenditures agreed to.

Prime Minister and Cabinet

Proposed expenditure, $377,103,000

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government is making the choice to keep our economy strong and to invest in our future. The Australian economy, by international standards, continues to perform extraordinarily well. We have a low debt-to-GDP ratio, one of the lowest in the developed world. We have strong employment, with the unemployment rate having a five at the front of it. Our economy has grown by 14 per cent since the global financial crisis, while Europe's economy has shrunk and the US economy has grown by just a couple of percentage points. The Australian stock market has grown strongly and the Australian economy is a standout performer on the international stage.

The government has recognised the challenges that the high Australian dollar places on our public finances. So the 2013-14 budget charts a pathway to return to balance in 2015-16 and to surplus by 2016-17, improving the sustainability of Australia's public finances and building on Australia's record of fiscal and economic strength. The priorities of the budget are providing schoolchildren with the opportunities to reach their full potential, with $9.8 billion invested in new school funding; providing support for people with severe and permanent disability through the historic $14.3 billion investment in DisabilityCare Australia; and providing critical infrastructure, as we heard in the previous portfolio's consideration in detail, with $24 billion of new investment in road and rail.

The budget charts a path to surplus, although the hit to revenues will see a budget deficit in 2013-14. The budget continues the government's record of identifying strategic savings rather than making savage cuts. While those opposite would cut back vital services that Australians depend on, while they would raise superannuation taxes on low-income workers, we on this side of the House have a different set of priorities. The coalition believe it is appropriate to take away money from children on their first day of school—

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

Madam Deputy Speaker Saffin, I raise a point of order on relevance. I understand this is the parliamentary secretary's first attempt at a consideration-in-detail stage of portfolio expenditure, but he should confine his remarks to the budget papers, as I understand it. Talking about the opposition, telling fibs about the opposition, does not relate to the budget papers for the forward estimates—

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

The member for Mayo will resume his seat.

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

so, if he could confine his remarks to the budget papers, that would be terrific.

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

The member for Mayo will take his seat. There is no point of order, and I think the honourable member for Mayo knows that.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The budget makes $43 billion of savings across the forward estimates, continuing a legacy of making responsible savings so that we can fund necessary investments. The government has chosen a sensible path of consolidation, maintaining strong growth and low unemployment while ensuring that Australia's debt levels are among the lowest in the developed world. Through these investments in the National Plan for School Improvement, DisabilityCare Australia, the National Health Reform Agreement and aged care, the government is ensuring that Australia is a stronger and more socially cohesive nation.

On the topic of aged-care investments, it was my pleasure recently to join the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing in my own electorate to speak with local residents about the importance of aged-care reform. This is just one of many consultations the government has held on aged-care reform.

The government's investments keep to our medium-term fiscal strategy, a fiscal strategy that has remained unchanged since the government's first budget in 2008-09—and that is, to achieve budget surpluses, on average, over the medium term; to keep taxation as a share of GDP, on average, below the level from 2007-08; and to improve the government's net financial worth over the medium term. While we have seen significant hits to revenue, the government has continued to hue to that path.

For the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, there are three new measures in the 2013-2014 budget, with a total fiscal impact of $112 million over four years. The government will provide $13.8 million over four years to the department to maintain existing organisational capacity and to support the government's critical initiatives and reform agenda. There will be $97.5 million over three years to support the G20 meetings in Queensland, in 2014, and there will be $0.65 million over three years to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to support Australia's membership of the United Nations Security Council.

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

Firstly, given the seniority of the cabinet minister at the table—and I appreciate him being here—I might ask the questions I have in relation to the Social Inclusion Unit and get the minister to respond before asking some questions of the parliamentary secretary in relation to the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio.

The coalition thinks that all Australians deserve the best opportunity at the life they wish to pursue. That is why we have announced a series of policies as part of our real solutions plan, to ensure people have those opportunities over the coming months. Where we find a little inconsistency is when the government has this so-called Social Inclusion Unit but seeks publicly to denigrate Australians it does not agree with. I refer in this respect to the terrific and remarkable contribution last week by the member for Batman in his speech to the parliament announcing his retirement, in which he made the point: 'We should be about creating opportunities for all Australians, not pursuing our pointless class rhetoric.'

How does a minister justify having a Social Inclusion Unit at the same time as the Treasurer of the country seeks to pursue, it would seem daily, this class warfare rhetoric in the parliament and outside by targeting Australians because of their success? How is that consistent with establishing this so-called Social Inclusion Unit and, in so doing, spending millions of dollars? Equally, Minister, can you outline to the parliament how much funding has been allocated to the Social Inclusion Unit over the forward estimates? How much of that funding has been allocated to the board as well as to the unit itself? How many people are currently employed within the Social Inclusion Unit? And what is the total expenditure so far in 2012-13 for this unit?

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

I thank the member for Mayo for his question and his interest in the concepts of social inclusion and for giving me the opportunity to talk a little bit about that and to answer, as best I can, his questions and maybe take on notice some of the more specific questions about dollars.

The government, since we came to power in 2007-08, thought it was important to have a social inclusion approach to government. I will talk a bit about the precise focus of that agenda, because I am not sure the member for Mayo has completely understood the idea of the social inclusion agenda, at least from our government's perspective.

Social inclusion, essentially, is about a fair go for all Australians. But taking particular account of the fact that, in spite of our extraordinary economic success over the periods of the Hawke government, the Keating government, the Howard government and our government since 2007, 21 years of uninterrupted economic growth which, as the parliamentary secretary eloquently said, has been the envy of the advanced economies around the world, that rising tide has simply not lifted all ships. We know through research that there remain around 600,000 adults in Australia who experience multiple points of disadvantage, by which I mean that it is not just that they are experiencing poverty or it is not just that they are experiencing disability or it is not just that they are experiencing unstable housing or perhaps homelessness. It is that they are experiencing a whole range of those disadvantages.

The Social Inclusion Agenda recognises two things: 1) that any country worth its salt needs to continue to focus on ensuring that, in our case, those Australians have the opportunity enjoyed by all others to participate in this country's success; and 2) that some of the traditional approaches to dealing with disadvantage are simply not working for that group. By that I mean that traditionally what we have done for someone experiencing poverty is to give them an income support program. What we have done for someone experiencing mental illness or disability is to give them some mental health support, and what we have done for someone experiencing housing issues is to give them housing support. Where people are dealing with multiple points of disadvantage we recognise there is an obligation on government and delivery agencies funded by government to work more in a joined-up way so that rather than those Australians having to go forum shopping with eight or 10 different agencies, they are given an approach that is centred upon them rather than centred upon different government agencies or different NGOs.

The member for Mayo will see that through a number of different reform initiatives pursued by this government. In my area of mental health, the Partners in Recovery program, which seeks to support some of the most chronically and seriously unwell in our community, is deliberately a joined-up program that seeks to bring together often eight or 10 different agencies that are providing support to these 60,000 or so Australians and ensure that the agencies work through one centralised support program rather than expecting those Australians and their families or carers to go shopping time and time again for different supports from different agencies. That is the purpose of our Social Inclusion Agenda.

I think the member for Mayo has slightly misunderstood the idea of social inclusion and taken a much broader sweep than we are intending to do through our agenda. Be very clear, our agenda on social inclusion is focused on those Australians experiencing the most intractable disadvantage. We receive very good advice and support from the Social Inclusion Board. Their How Australia is faring report is one of the best reports to bring together a range of different sources of evidence and research to understand better what is driving that level of disadvantage among those Australians—the extent to which it is locality based, the extent to which it focuses around poor health and disability. We know through those research pieces that these are the surest paths into intractable disadvantage, but we also understand that the surest path out of that disadvantage is training and employment. I appreciate the advice we have received from the Social Inclusion Board. I will take on notice the particular questions about the dollars that the member for Mayo has asked me and I thank him again for his interest in this very important policy agenda.

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

I would like to start my contribution, prior to asking the minister the question I have, by thanking him very much for visiting my electorate last week and for the Social Inclusion report that has been done on Wyong Shire Council, and particularly the area he visited which is extremely disadvantaged. It is an area that will benefit enormously from the government's contribution in the area of social inclusion. I particularly thank him for meeting with a number of young people on the issue of mental health and the need for mental health resources in a very poor and isolated area. The report on Wyong Shire has shown just how people in that area have missed out. The concept of social inclusion is very important. It is not playing one group against another; it is making sure that everybody in our society has an opportunity.

The government has invested substantially in improved mental health services over the last five years, culminating in a record $2.2 billion package of reforms announced in the budget, which are now being successfully implemented across Australia. We all just need to look at our electorates to see how successful it has been. We express our thanks to the government, at least on this side of the House. A key part of that reform package was to establish a new mental health commission, to bring better transparency and to report on performance to our mental health service and in our entire mental health system. The budget continues the government support for funding of the National Mental Health Commission and the commission continues to be funded through the Prime Minister's office. Could the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Mental Health Reform inform the chamber how this funding will be used and what progress the commission has made already? I also invite the minister to reflect on the leadership of the commission, especially given the recent announcement by Robin Kruk AM about her intention to resign from the Australian Public Service.

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

I thank the member for Shortland for her question. For the benefit of the chamber, I am sworn as the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Mental Health Reform so that I can be sworn to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet because that is where the National Mental Health Commission is situated as an agency, for reasons I will explain shortly.

I thank the member for Shortland for hosting me last week in her beautiful electorate, for the events we were able to hold there and for the discussions particularly that we were able to have with an incredibly impressive and resilient group of young people in San Remo. This is a group of young people who have been through pretty tough times in family circumstances dealing with mental health issues, who advocated very clearly and forcefully the need for mental health services in the northern part of the Wyong Shire. The strip from the Central Coast up to Newcastle is well serviced by headspace services. The headspace Gosford service, now called headspace Central Coast, is one of the oldest headspaces and one of the most professional services we have in the country. Deb there is a great leader of headspace, not just in that part of New South Wales but around the country. We were able to open headspace Newcastle last week as well.

The arguments were forcefully made that there perhaps is the need for us to consider some support for the northern Wyong Shire Council, nestled between Gosford and Newcastle. I was particularly struck by some of the arguments made by young people, their parents, their teachers, their high school principals and, in some cases, their grandparents about the particular social circumstances of that part of the Shortland electorate. There are relatively speaking low rates of car ownership impacting on someone's capacity to drive to Gosford or to Newcastle. The relatively low rates of internet connection restrains a young person's ability to tap into our investments in e-headspace and other mental health initiatives. That for me was a very powerful discussion and again I thank you for that.

As your question intimates, the National Mental Health Commission is structurally a very important part of our mental health reform agenda. I want to place on record that the idea of mental health reform and the need to improve mental health services has happily been a bipartisan idea for several years. We differ sometimes on the details of that effort, but I am very pleased that, from the community's point of view, that is seen as a bipartisan obligation on all governments—Commonwealth or state.

As I was developing the reform agenda to take to cabinet for the 2011 budget process, I heard very forcefully from mental health academics but also and most importantly from consumers and carers that they wanted a body like the National Mental Health Commission, for two reasons. They wanted an agency at arm's length from government that would report without fear or favour on the performance of our mental health services. We have reported now for more than 20 years in this country in minute detail the number of beds we have in the mental health system, the number of staff we have in the system, but we have not been good at reporting on outcomes. We have not been good at reporting on the degree to which those investments through taxpayer dollars change people's lives and help them recover from their illness, help them connect back with their families and communities, back to work, back into stable housing and so on.

That is the message I heard most clearly from consumers and carers, and that is the job of the National Mental Health Commission. They have done it marvellously well in their first year. The report card that they released just before Christmas put a spotlight—I think for the first time—on the extraordinary physical health disadvantage that, particularly, people with severe mental illness experience. Their life expectancy gap—the gap between their life expectancy and the average—is almost 30 years. The only other group in the Australian community that experiences a similar life expectancy gap is Indigenous Australians. I think that was a very powerful piece of work, and they also put the spotlight back on the use of seclusion and restraint, particularly in state mental health systems.

Robyn Kruk has been a great leader of this commission. She is a former New South Wales Director General of Premier and Cabinet and director general of the health service. She has held senior positions in the APS. She has announced her retirement from the APS, and consequently the position of head of the commission, in the past several weeks. I want to place on record her work in setting up the commission to be, I think, a long-term benefit to the Australian community.

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

I want to acknowledge the minister's comments just then, acknowledging that this has been a bipartisan commitment. I thank him for that. It has been. The shadow minister for health has pursued these issues with vigour in the last few years, and the Leader of the Opposition also. I also acknowledge the minister's commitment. In my own electorate he has met with groups and attempted to solve some of the challenges that I think there are, particularly in regional mental health issues. You would know yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker Saffin, that they are a different set of issues and are very hard to fix. I know the minister has put some attention on that, and we appreciate that. I am not sure we have yet got it right, so it is an issue which we need to continue to focus on.

I want to turn my attention to the administration of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, particularly with the parliamentary secretary here. Some of the machinery aspects of government which I think are important have been downplayed by ministers in this place this week, but I think they are substantially important to the operations of an effective executive government. During the Howard years, of which I had some experience as a staff member, there was a focus on ensuring the proper process was always followed—certainly from the Prime Minister, who very much respected the office that he held and the processes and traditions of that office. What has become apparent this week in estimates and in questioning in this place is that it seems that there are a series of ministers, through the chaos and dysfunction of the events of March this year, who have not received their charter letter from the Prime Minister.

For those unfamiliar with it, a charter letter is the letter which in effect is a job description for the minister. It outlines what it is the minister is responsible for, acts and the expectations of the minister. In the Howard years, the Prime Minister would have a session with each minister every 12 months to go through the charter letter and work through whether the outcomes that he expected to be achieved in the portfolio area to further the government's agenda were indeed being achieved. It was a very important letter for internally holding ministers to account to ensure that the aims and the pursuit of the policy direction of the government—which is usually announced at the beginning of a term in the Governor-General's speech—were being achieved.

It strikes me as quite remarkable that the Minister for Human Services, who is responsible in this budget for $157 billion worth of payments—the agency of human services is responsible for $157 billion worth of payments which Australians rely on, whether it be pensions, childcare payments, payments in relation to family tax benefit or Medicare rebates; you name it, they are responsible for it—does not have a charter letter from the chaos and dysfunction of March. There was no charter letter. It was then revealed in the portfolio of the minister for social and community services, Minister Macklin, that she does not have a charter letter. I presume the minister for mental health and other issues has a charter letter.

After that short preamble, my questions to the parliamentary secretary are as follows. How many ministers have not received their charter letter? Will they get the charter letter prior to the government entering into its caretaker period, which is about 78 days away? Have the Prime Minister and her department drafted those letters yet? Is this stuck in the in-tray? Do they intend to put some urgency to it? Can the parliamentary secretary update us on these matters?

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Mayo for his questions. He raises an important question of proper process, the details of which I am happy to take on notice and supply to him. But I share his commitment to proper processes and have great faith in the diligence of public servants, not just in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet but in other departments as well.

This government has a strong commitment to reform and a strong commitment to ensuring that proper processes are followed. That is why under this government we have seen a continued series of important reforms making a difference in people's lives. We have seen the development of the National Broadband Network, DisabilityCare Australia, a profit based mining tax and a price on carbon pollution—any single one of which policy developments, under other governments, might have taken the entire attention of the government. Yet this government has managed each of those reforms in the context of a global financial crisis and the unusual perfect storm of a high Australian dollar and a fall-off in commodity prices. The government's commitment to reform remains steadfast, as does our commitment to public servants. It is not for this side of the House to be slashing 20,000 jobs out of the Public Service. We have great faith in the Public Service. It is the view of this side of parliament—

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. This was an issue raised about when the Prime Minister was going to send charter letters to her ministers who have not received them. Talking about the opposition's plans to live within our means and to ensure that we have got a Public Service which is operating efficiently—and this instance shows quite clearly that it is not—has not got anything to do with the question I asked.

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

As I understand it, the question time rules do not apply. The parliamentary secretary's response is appropriate if it is relevant to the parliamentary secretary's portfolio.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker, for that ruling. I share your view that someone who is focused upon the importance of proper rules and proper process should also be aware of the rules and processes of this place and the rules that govern consideration in detail.

I will conclude by saying that this government has a strong record of working constructively with the Public Service. We recognise the great reforming work that public servants do. That is why we are committed to a strong Public Service. That is why this side of parliament will never resort to the sorts of attacks upon public servants that we see from members of the opposition, which are so regrettable because of the great work that is done by public servants to build a stronger and more cohesive nation.

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

I have a couple of questions for the minister on the not-for-profit reform agenda. I spent a number of years—in fact a couple of decades—of my life working in the not-for-profit sector and have extraordinary regard for the people that work in it, largely from firsthand experience. I got into it as a piano player—a repetiteur in the opera company, coaching singers in their roles—in my early 20s, and I spent the next nearly three decades in it before going into business on my own. It is filled with people who can start with a blank piece of paper and can identify some of the most extraordinarily large problems and chip away at them, on the smell of an oily rag. If you want to see efficiency, look at the not-for-profit sector. They achieve the most extraordinary things with very little money quite often.

But one of the things you also notice when you work in that sector is the amount of time you spend applying to government and, particularly, reporting to government. If you are a large organisation, you might apply for funding across six states and territories plus to the Commonwealth government and local councils, and you might apply to several departments in each of those places. So it is not unusual when you are reporting to have to provide anywhere from three to six copies of annual reports even three years back. In my office we had a shelf of annual reports each year for the last three years, a shelf of constitutions and a shelf of folders that contained things like certificates of cooperation. Several times a year you would send not an envelope off to a government department but a box of stuff.

When applying for grants there is also the need to continually establish your bona fides. There is an incredible amount of repetitive red tape to supply to different bodies and different levels of government. I was really pleased to see the work done by the Labor government in reducing that red tape. It started to rationalise how the not-for-profit sector relates to government, particularly with its exchange of information. I know that incredible work has been done, but I would really like an update on the progress of that reform agenda and the recent achievements in reducing red tape and simplifying Commonwealth grants programs for those who apply for them.

The second matter for me is the issue of gags. Between the years of 2004 and 2007 when I was representing Parramatta in opposition I saw first-hand some of the ramifications of the Howard government's gag clauses. In fact, I went to a forum in this house run by one of the members of the now opposition called 'Participatory democracy: a threat to democracy'. The forum was actually about a view that people in the not-for-profit sector who are representing a community but are not elected by the people are a corruption in democracy. It was actually quite scary. It was filled with Liberal members. I was the only one in the room who was not a Liberal member. I saw the impact of that view in my community when we had organisations representing some of the most vulnerable people in the community who did not feel that they had the right to speak on their behalf. It is my view, and I know it is the government's view, that a good government should be brave enough to feed the hand that bites it. It is the job of the not-for-profit sector to identify problems as they emerge at the coalface, make those well known and speak very, very loudly for those who are not able to speak for themselves.

I know that the Campbell Newman government has reintroduced gag clauses. I know that the Barry O'Farrell government is talking about reintroducing them. I know that the Labor government abolished Howard's gag clauses as one of its first actions in 2008. I would just like the minister to advise the chamber on recent announcements on the gag clauses both from the Commonwealth and from other governments and to inform the House about the impact of those announcements on the freedom of the not-for-profit sector to advocate for policy reform on behalf of some of the most vulnerable people in the community.

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

I thank the member for Parramatta for her question and for reminding us of her piano skills. I remember walking past the Great Hall when she was rehearsing Rachmaninoff's piano concerto No. 2, which is an extraordinarily difficult piece.

Honourable member interjecting—

No—a drummer. I have no particular musical sense. I have some vague sense of rhythm but no sense of tune!

I thank the member for Parramatta. I also thank her for hosting me on a number of occasions in the electorate of Parramatta to meet with some fantastic not-for-profit organisations, the latest of which was when we met with the Evolve Housing organisation, which is a wonderful community housing organisation in the west of Sydney.

I also want to place on record my thanks to the member for Parramatta for her chairing of the House Standing Committee on Economics inquiry into the ACNC, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, which is a centrepiece of the government's not-for-profit reform agenda. We have a very strong and firm view that not-for-profit reform is one of the outstanding pieces of microeconomic reform. By 'outstanding' I mean that it is one of those pieces of microeconomic reform that is still to be done. In many respects the ACNC reforms, and a number of other reforms associated with them, mirror the reforms that the Hawke government drove in the late 1980s, in the corporations sector, to do away with the myriad of reporting obligations that corporations back then had to comply with at Commonwealth and state levels.

The not-for-profit reform sector constitutes about 600,000 organisations. It is responsible for, or employs, about eight per cent of Australia's workforce. It engages about five million, or five-sixths, of the entire Australian volunteer workforce. It contributes—at last count, which is a little bit out of date—about $43 billion to Australia's GDP, which makes it a larger economic contributor to Australia than agriculture and tourism, just to name a couple of other industries. This is a very substantial part of Australia's economy and workforce.

But perhaps even more importantly, its value is inestimable in terms of its social contribution. All of us as local members of parliament and as members of the Australian community, come across, every day, NFP NGO organisations working with paid staff and with volunteers who are teaching young kids to play footie or engage in surf lifesaving, or delivering some of the most important social services to support some of the most vulnerable members of our community.

In addition to establishing the ACNC we recognise the government's role as a good citizen—as an organisation which contracts with many tens of thousands of not-for-profit organisations who, as I have said, deliver some of these incredibly important services to the Australian community. And I think we have an obligation to be a good citizen in that respect.

It concerned me, as a line agency minister to a number of departments, the number of contracts that we have with the NFP sector that run for only 12 months; the number of contracts which are renewed only very late in the financial year, which creates great uncertainty for those organisations and their staff; and the number of contracts which do not see timely acquittals. I think we have a very important obligation, regardless of the political flavour of the party in government at the time, to ensure that we are a good purchaser of services from these NGOs.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11:42 to 11:55

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

The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet obviously plays an extremely significant role across government activities. In the short time remaining, I am interested in asking the parliamentary secretary—he probably does not have full details—whether he can enlighten the parliament a bit more, given this is a very quickly moving story. Yesterday, at the end of question time, the Prime Minister announced that there would be a review or an inquiry into the events surrounding the placement of a convicted Egyptian Islamic jihadi terrorist in the low-detention facility in the Adelaide Hills for seven months, with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship knowingly having that person there, before the person was moved into high security at Villawood on 17 April, after the West Australian newspaper raised the issue.

As I said, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet traditionally plays a cross-portfolio role in these sorts of issues and usually establishes a group which, from the public service side, leads inquiries, or the secretariat or support, and provides advice and so forth. I am wondering whether, at this stage, given the government has announced its review, it has worked through the details of what the department's commitment on assisting this review will be, to ensure that the full facts are revealed about why this convicted Islamic terrorist was put into the Inverbrackie facility, which the department of immigration knew, and no action was taken to move that person until this was made public. Given the revelations the minister for immigration made in this place during the week—that the minister was not advised, and then subsequently updated the parliament that the previous minister was advised—obviously the Prime Minister’s department will play an important role in bringing all of this together as a cross-portfolio function. Can the parliamentary secretary tell us, in the short time remaining, how much work has gone into preparing for the inquiry that was announced yesterday and how many resources will be allocated to it?

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Mayo for his question. The inquiry that was announced yesterday will be conducted by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, not the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. The independent Inspector- General of Intelligence and Security will focus attention on making sure that information is shared appropriately. But I would reinforce the point that the Prime Minister made in the House yesterday—that the individual in question was in detention at all times. That is an important factor for all members of the House to be aware of.

It is vital that this House is not misled on this matter. It has, I think, been disappointing to see the opposition opposing the independent investigation by the Inspector-General, who has legal authority to conduct such an inquiry, and instead calling for an inquiry by a parliamentary committee that does not have authority to have such an inquiry. It is disappointing and it does speak, I think, to the opposition's willingness to use the important issue of national security as a political football.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Remainder of bill—by leave—taken as a whole and agreed to.

Bill agreed to.

Ordered that the bill reported to the House without amendment.