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

I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2013-2014 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014. In these bills the government is requesting that parliament approve additional expenditure of around $14.8 billion, which largely reflects the government's decisions outlined in the 2013-14 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook.

Let me say from the outset that the opposition do not oppose the passage of the three appropriations bills we are debating in the parliament today. Without denying this bill being read a second time, I move:

That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading the House notes that:

(1) the Government repeatedly stated before the election 'that if debt is the problem, more debt is not the answer';

(2) the 2013-14 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook showed a $17 billion blow-out in the 2013-14 budget deficit, which at the time represented a $167 million budget blow-out per day since the Government took office;

(3) 60 per cent of the predicted budget blow-out in 2013-14 was due to the decisions of the Government alone;

(4) the Government has sought to pave the way for deep cuts to the federal budget by deliberately blowing out the budget and establishing its Commission of Audit; and

(5) these cuts would be another example of this Government saying one thing before the election, and doing the complete opposite after it."

What we have continually seen from this government is that they do one thing after the election having said the complete opposite before the election. We have a litany of examples: the Renewable Energy Target, jobs, taxation, cuts to health and education, and this particular case—the budget.

We had a lot of slogans from the coalition prior to the election and we still hear them today. There is one that I would like to bring up—the slogan: 'If debt is the problem, more debt is not the answer'. If more debt was not the answer, why did the government do a deal with the Greens to legislate for unlimited debt? And what about the issue of this budget emergency? We heard, saw and read an awful lot about that from the coalition prior to the election, but when we actually saw the Abbott government's MYEFO last year, the first budget document to be published under the new government, we saw a nearly $17-billion budget blow-out for 2013-14, more than a 50 per cent increase in the budget deficit, 60 per cent of which was due to decisions of this government. And that blow-out, with a deficit of $30 billion to $47 billion, represented a huge amount every day—$160 million per day.

The component of the budget deficit that did not represent increased expenditure was as a result, largely, of changes in assumptions. We learned yesterday morning from the Secretary of the Department of Finance, David Tune, when he spoke to Senate estimates, that the estimates in MYEFO had dropped the former Labor government's fiscal rules which limited real spending growth. Mr Tune confirmed to Senate estimates that this change in assumptions increased MYEFO's projections for the size of the budget debt over the decade to 2023-24.

So what MYEFO did was to deceitfully change the rules and then claim, lo and behold, to uncover a $667-billion debt figure. These politically biased assumptions had the effect of pumping up the debt and deficit projections—pumping them up markedly. The independent Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook clearly shows that, on the former government's policy settings, the medium-term projection had the underlying cash surplus growing after the forward estimates and reaching one per cent of GDP in 2020-21. Net debt was projected to return to zero in 2023-24.

That figure of a surplus of one per cent of GDP in 2020-21 is an important figure because we know that the terms of the National Commission of Audit were a requirement that the commission:

… make recommendations to achieve savings sufficient to deliver a surplus of one per cent of GDP prior to 2023-24.

But if you do not make the $9-billion grant to the Reserve Bank, if you do not give $700 million to multinational firms through tax loopholes, and if you do not relax the fiscal rules, you have got that surplus of one per cent of GDP happening in 2020-21. That surplus is there in the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook.

There have been a lot of games played with the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook. These are games, ironically, which were played by a party that PEFO into place. After the 1996 election then Treasurer Costello put in place a Charter of Budget Honesty. That charter required the secretaries of Treasury and Finance to prepare a Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook, PEFO, that ensured, as Treasurer Costello put it at the time:

That the Australian people know the situation before an election begins and so that elections can be conducted on the basis of facts and not on the basis of deceit, as governments in the past have sought to do.

PEFO was the fiscal equivalent of Mortein for spiders in the closet—it made it impossible for a new government to claim that, lo and behold, the state of the books were not what had been represented, because what PEFO does is ensure that the independent secretaries of Treasury and Finance sit down during the election campaign and set out the state of the books. The spider-free economy that the government took on had an economy with solid growth, unemployment low by historical standards and gross debt projected to peak at $370 billion in 2016-17. That is the spider-free economy that the Treasurer took on. That was underpinned by strong economic growth during Labor's time in office.

When Labor took office, our economy was the 15th largest in the world; when Labor left office our economy was the 12th largest in the world. In terms of income per person, we did better yet: we rose from 17th in the world when Labor took office to eighth in the world when Labor left office. In terms of infrastructure spending we did better still. As the member for Grayndler has articulately pointed out on numerous occasions, when we took office we were ranked worse than 20th in the OECD; in 2012 and 2013 we were ranked first by the OECD for our infrastructure investment. We also continued to benefit Australians in other ways. Lower interest rates for someone with a $300,000 mortgage meant a saving of over $100 a week. We made a series of tough decisions in our budget. In fact, I warrant that Labor's final budget not only will be the only budget in Australian history to have achieved a reduction in nominal spending, but also will keep that record. I find it very hard to imagine that another government will succeed in doing that. That was done in ways that ensured that, if spending had to be addressed, it was done in the fairest possible way and in a way that did not hit jobs.

When we cracked down on multinational profit shifting, we saved taxpayers billions of dollars. When we means tested the private health insurance rebate, we did so in a way that ensured it did not include those with the greatest means in the community. Those opposite foresaw doom: they said that private health insurance take-up would plummet as a result of the means testing, but the data has given a lie to that claim. When we means tested and restricted the baby bonus to second and subsequent children, the now Treasurer said it was like China's one-child policy. He gives speeches about the age of entitlement, but when Labor came to put in place modest savings measures to ensure that savings were made in a way that shared the burden fairly across the community, all the member for North Sydney could do was to run scare campaigns—big speeches in London; scare campaigns in Australia.

The decisions the government is making are decisions that are going to assist the most affluent and imperil jobs. This is the first Treasurer to knock back a foreign investment bid by a US company, which potentially imperils jobs in Australia. The Treasurer's decision to give $9 billion to the Reserve Bank is bewildering, given that we have no evidence that the Reserve Bank asked for such a grant; and the Treasurer is defying a Senate order to produce the documentation that would support that. The Treasurer says that the reason he needed to give $9 billion to the Reserve Bank was that Labor had taken a larger dividend from the bank than was appropriate. Again, the data gives lie to that claim. Adjusting for inflation, the Howard government took $3 billion a year from the Reserve Bank and Labor $1½ billion a year. So, what Labor took from the Reserve Bank was half in real terms what the coalition, when in office, took from the bank. Of course, we know why the Treasurer has gifted $9 billion to the Reserve Bank; he wants the 2013-14 budget to be someone else's problem. He is like a coach who takes over the job a quarter of the way into the season and wants to be able to blame a whole set of decisions on his predecessor.

This is a man who has not made the transition into government. Like the Prime Minister, the Treasurer is the shadow Treasurer in drag. He is a man who is still out there attacking the economy, when he should be fighting for jobs. He is happy to come in here and play a game of high stakes poker with Holden, but when he loses he wants to blame that on someone else. At the same time he is making decisions which will cost the budget still further. Take the parental leave scheme, which his own backbench strongly opposes, for instance. Alex Hawke, the member for Mitchell, is the most articulate critic of the parental leave scheme on the other side. He argues, not unreasonably, that a scheme that gives $75,000 to a millionaire family to have a baby is probably a scheme that is pretty hard to justify to the average family when they are having their schoolkids bonus taken away. What were the talking points when the coalition was putting this gold-plated, diamond-encrusted parental leave scheme in place? They told us that it was appropriate to have such a generous scheme, because it was an entitlement. That is why we had to support it—because wage replacement parental leave paid for by the taxpayer was an entitlement. So much for the end of the age of entitlement! I think the age of entitlement is just getting going for those millionaire families. And it is just getting going if you are a mining billionaire: you are going to see a very generous tax cut under this government—something in the order of $4 billion under the forward estimates is forecast by this Treasurer to be lost when the mining tax is repealed.

For the no-surprises, no-excuses government that the Australian people were promised, they are seeing something entirely different. The Prime Minister—who said there would be no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to the pension or to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS—is now facing off with the Treasurer who says that all options are on the table. Last Friday we heard reports that the Treasurer was flagging changes to Medicare, education and the pension age. Despite the fact that he spent an election campaign clutching a Our Plan–Real Solutions for all Australians pamphlet—which says on page 49 that the government would be more accountable to the Australian public—we now have a Commission of Audit, which has been sitting on the Treasurer's desk since Valentine's Day. If it had been a bunch of roses it would be a little the worse for wear by now. The roses that I purchased for my wife on Valentine's Day have had to be consigned to the dustbin.

But the Treasurer has apparently been more interested in other reading. We have seen in recent media reports that he is halfway through a new biography of Margaret Thatcher. Perhaps while he is reading Margaret Thatcher's biography he could share with the Australian people the Commission of Audit report. Of course, that is what the Howard government did when they commissioned a commission of audit report. They had a commission of audit that was independent and which released its report to the Australian public at the same time as it did so to the Treasurer. But this is a government which is even more secretive than the Howard government, which, let's face it, did not set many international records for its commitment to transparency and openness. The Treasurer said that he would release the Commission of Audit report sooner rather than later. Well, Treasurer, the clock is ticking. This is, of course, the Treasurer who said he would give us a budget update in his first 100 days in office and failed to meet that deadline. So he clearly has form. That is right: MYEFO—not delivered in the first 100 days.

We hear a lot from those opposite about the state that Labor left the budget in. But the state in which they claim they received it is not what Peter Costello would have said. Peter Costello would have said: 'If you want to know the state of the books when you took over, look at PEFO.' Joe Hockey and Mathias Cormann want you to look to MYEFO, a document delivered more than three months into the Abbott government.

When Labor left office, as independently verified by the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook, there was to be a surplus in 2016-17. Labor had deficits across the forward estimates of $54.6 billion. But, by the time we got to MYEFO, those cumulative deficits over the forwards had more than doubled, to $123 billion. We saw, from the PEFO to MYEFO, Labor having net debt at zero by 2023-24 but, once the Abbott government had put in place their changes in expenditure which we are debating today, and their shonky changes to the fiscal rules, net debt by 2023-24 was projected to be 14.3 per cent of GDP. So the fact is: Labor had the budget heading into surplus in 2016-17 and to zero net debt in a decade; this government, by decisions totally of its own accord, has blown that out of the water.

This debate is occurring in a broader context, and it is absolutely critical to recognise that context, which is that the government is trying to pretend that Australia is a different country from that which it is. The social services minister, Kevin Andrews, has been found by the ABC Fact Check unit to be false in his claims that Australia's welfare system is not sustainable and in suggesting that there is a European-style fiscal crunch coming within a decade.

The simple fact is that, when we look at how Australia compares with other countries and at the size of government in Australia, Australia is a relatively low-taxing country. Do not take my word for that. In 2006, then Treasurer Peter Costello—I cannot quite believe I am quoting him twice in this speech, but there you go; even a stopped clock is right twice a day—requested a run-down on how our tax system compared with those of other countries. The report, which was co-authored by Peter Hendy, now the member for Eden-Monaro, concluded simply:

… Australia is a low-tax country.

That report pointed out that we do not have wealth, estate, inheritance or gift taxes. It found that, for individuals, we have one of the lowest income-tax burdens in the developed world. Since then, federal Labor has delivered significant personal income tax cuts. When Peter Costello was describing Australia as a low-tax country, the federal tax to GDP ratio was 24 per cent. After six years of Labor, that ratio had fallen to 23 per cent. Add in state and local governments, and the tax ratio is around 33 per cent of national income. To put that in perspective, New Zealand and the United Kingdom currently have a tax take that exceeds 40 per cent of GDP, and they have conservative governments in charge.

So let us see this for what it is: the size of our government is much more similar to those of Korea or the United States, not, as ideologues on the right would have you believe, in the league of Finland and Switzerland. So, when this government attacks expenditure, and when it says that it is unsustainable to have a schoolkids bonus, to have income support payments, or to ensure that low-income earners get a fair deal on their superannuation and do not pay a higher tax rate on super than they pay on wages, then you are listening to an ideological agenda. When the chairman of the Prime Minister's Business Advisory Council, Maurice Newman, describes DisabilityCare as 'reckless', he is striking fear into the hearts of thousands of Australians with a disability.

This government has engaged in backflips on school funding and backflips on debt. This is, after all, a government that went from holding press conferences in front of a debt truck to striking a deal with the Greens for uncapped debt. It is hard to tell whether BA Santamaria, Friedrich Hayek or the Marx Brothers are in charge. And you do not need to take it from me. Peter Costello—

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Three times!

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

It's three times the cock has crowed, isn't it! Peter Costello famously replied, when asked if he had endorsed Tony Abbott, 'Oh, not on economic matters.' And he was said, in private, to describe the Prime Minister as economically illiterate. His former employer, John Hewson, has covered off the other side of the basic skills test by describing the Prime Minister as innumerate. This is a government which needs to recognise the broad context in which it sits—which needs to recognise a report from the mid-2000s which describes Australia as a low-tax, low-spending nation.

The vital debate in Australia at the moment is over productivity and jobs. If you are serious about jobs, you have to get the short-term settings right and the long-term settings right. In the short term it is absolutely vital that we do not withdraw demand from the economy at a time when employment is fragile. This is a government that came to office with a target to generate a million jobs in five years, yet since it won office we have seen very modest growth in part-time jobs but backsliding in full-time jobs; 63,000 full-time jobs lost since this government came to office. So the net result is 7,000 net jobs gone. That million jobs target is slipping away by the day. Partly that is because—and I am sure the minister at the table may have something to say about this—this is a government that said no to foreign investment in GrainCorp, said no to foreign investment that would have generated jobs in the rural sector.

Mr McCormack interjecting—

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

The parliamentary secretary can have a go later if he likes.

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

Did I just promote the parliamentary secretary? He can make a personal explanation later. This is a government which is withdrawing regional jobs as it closes ATO offices. A government which is serious about jobs ought not to be firing Public Servants left, right and centre, particularly not as the growth in public sector employment under Labor was slower than the population growth. The growth in the number of Public Servants was smaller than the growth in population. Most public services are deployed on the basis that you need a certain number of people to look after the population, whether that is the hardworking Public Servants in the Centrelink offices, Family Assistance offices or Medicare offices. Anyone who argues that Australia has a bloated public employment problem ought to say that doubly of the Howard government, which had more Public Servants per capita than we have today.

So in the short term the government is withdrawing demand and it is cutting jobs at a fragile time for the economy. But it is the long term that worries me even more. In the long term if you want to sustain employment you need to make the investments in skills and in infrastructure. You need to make the investments in the National Broadband Network and in urban rail, both of which this government is walking away from. Having breached their solemn pledge to the Australian people to deliver 25 megabits a second to Australians by 2016, they have now said that, disappointingly, that that is impossible to deliver on. Having said that he wants to be the infrastructure Prime Minister, the Prime Minister has now backed away from Infrastructure Australia, a process designed to put infrastructure decisions at arm's length. And he is being criticised by members of the business community for being unwilling to fund urban public transport, something which is fundamental to city productivity.

Then there is what they are doing on education. You need investment in great schools if you are to build the jobs of the future. This is where Labor said, 'We're going to strike a deal with states where we put in $2 of federal funds and the states guarantee a dollar for federal funds.' This government's funding deal is, 'We'll put in $2 of federal funds and if you want to take out your funds at the same time, feel free.' That is a very different deal to the unity ticket that Australians were promised on school funding and it is fundamental to Australia's economic prosperity. We cannot be a high-skill, productive nation in the future if we are slashing into schools, if we are getting rid of trades training centres and if, as this education minister has suggested, we walk away from the demand-driven model which has allowed children first in their family to attend university and which has benefited particularly rural and regional students.

These hits to Australia's productivity and to our short-term growth prospects are deeply disturbing. We need the government that we were promised before the election, a government of no surprises and no excuses that takes responsibility, steps up to the plate as an adult government and is willing to make the decisions that the Australian economy demands.

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

Is the amendment seconded?

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment.

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

The question is now that the amendment be agreed to.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome this opportunity. It was a very interesting contribution by the shadow minister today because it seems so surreal that the realities of the past two terms of government have been glossed over so completely. Every budget that has been delivered by the previous two Labor governments, the Gillard government and the Rudd government, has been shown to be inaccurate with regard to its figures. The assumptions must have been wrong on so many occasions, because in every case none of what the Treasurer, the member for Lilley, said has been proved to be even moderately accurate. There was no surplus in that first budget. The money was left over from the Costello-Howard years but it was gone very quickly after that. Then the much-vaunted return to surplus that was promised on hundreds of occasions and that the last member for Lindsay ultimately proclaimed was already reality just before he lost his seat, on all those occasions it was clearly shown that what Labor did with the budget could never be relied upon and was never accurate.

Now, when we are faced with the reality of what the figures were and the reality of what must occur in the future, we see across the forward estimates $123 billion of accumulated deficit and—if we do nothing, if we just let it carry on according to the Labor Party's plan—$660 billion of debt over the next 10 years. When I look around this country and I meet the people of my electorate, I think to myself, 'If we are doing the right thing, if we accept responsibility, we have to do something now about the budget situation that was left to us, the $660 billion.' I see young children in the gallery today. It is not right that today's generation leave that debt on them. If we are talking about $667 billion, that is something we need to do something about, because it might not be them; it could be their children as well. So it is time for responsibility and it is time for someone to act. Fortunately, under the leadership of the Hon. Tony Abbott and under Treasurer Joe Hockey, we are back on the road.

We hear from the other side talk about Holden that is fanciful as well. It is so effective to gloss over the demise of Mitsubishi and Ford, and so convenient for the Labor Party to just disregard what General Motors said from Detroit. General Motors said that nothing could have been done. Nothing was going to change their minds about stopping production of Holdens in Australia. In the end, they could not export enough, and not enough Australians bought their cars. This is where we have come to. These are the sorts of problems that have faced manufacturing in Australia. And we are, sadly, at this point.

The main reason I wanted to speak today was to talk about the boats, the illegal arrivals. I talk about that because it was the main issue in my electorate, and it was for a long time. It was not just something that happened in the move up to the last election or the election before that; it is something that has been on people's minds for a long while in my electorate. It is not out of a sense of fear, as the Left so often say. 'Fear', 'demonisation'—they throw these words out. They even throw out the word 'racism' to try and make the people of this country feel that they are doing the wrong thing by questioning what was going on over the past six years.

It is so unfair to do that, because I do not see a whole lot of racism in this country at all. I see people who want a fair go for the refugees who are out there in this world behind the barbed wire. That is what Australians want. That is what people in my electorate want. They do not say: 'Let's have no refugees. Stuff them all.' They do not say that. They say: 'Who is most deserving? Who is going to work well and get the most out of living in this country if we give them the opportunity?' That should always be our focus. It should always be about that fair go for people who are out there in the world, stuck behind barbed wire without two dollars to rub together.

Then you contrast that with those who come by boat—yes, they want a better life; there is no doubt about it. Although they do not come at all anymore. We are getting up towards 70 days since a boat has arrived, so obviously the minister, the system and the policies of the government are working well. I completely endorse the minister in everything he is doing. But the reality is that there were a lot of people coming in the past. As we know, 50,000 arrived on over 800 boats under the failed border policies of the previous government.

I compare those in refugee camps like those along the Burma-Thailand border, such as the Mae La camp. I have been there. I have seen the little kids, not quite in rags but not flashily dressed or anything like that. I compare them and their need to those who come by boat.

When we think about people coming by boat, let us keep in mind that it is not just by boat. No-one hops on a boat out of Kabul harbour, because there is no harbour in Kabul. There is no water. There is no way you could get on a boat, so they have to cross a border. And people do not actually come by boat from Iran or from Lebanon. People do not come by boat all the way from Lebanon. We have heard those stories—stories of tragedy, yes—where family members have unfortunately lost their lives at sea. It is a great tragedy. But I remember seeing—I think it was on an ABC program—the lone survivor of a family who all lost their lives at sea trying to get to Australia. He described how they were all on an Emirates flight out of Lebanon or Dubai, and they had the whole row. I have trouble reconciling that with the desperate need that we so often hear about from the Greens, those pretenders like Senator Hanson-Young—disgrace that she is to this country. I find it hard to think about people getting off a plane in Dubai and passing the duty-free stores—their apparently desperate need to go through a terminal—compared to those who are stuck in a refugee camp.

It is about priorities, and it is about time that we got back to the position we are in now, whereby we can clear the backlog of those who were left behind to us and then work on making sure that those who are in the greatest need and who are going to thrive in this country are the ones we work to get into this country. That is the compassionate approach, and it is not the encouragement of the recklessness of risking lives at sea that so many on the Left, particularly the Greens and some on the other side of this parliament, pursue. I think that Australians really need to realise—and I think that just about everybody does, and that is great—that there is a difference between those in true need and those whose circumstances are such that, while it might be desirable to come here, they are nowhere near as desperate or in need as those behind the refugee camp wire.

I want to take exception to the ABC program Behind the News. In 2012 they aired a program where they talked about the success of a young refugee who had come from Afghanistan. Obviously, he had been successful in going to high school. In one of the graphics that they were showing to primary school students they demonstrated the way he came to Australia. I do not expect anyone here in the chamber to be able to see this document, but it describes a hatched route that goes from Afghanistan, down through Pakistan, probably through Karachi, and then it has got the route, with a boat on it, going down the west side of India. Clearly, that is a fabrication because we know that people come from there through Malaysia or Indonesia by aircraft. No boats go down that way. So it is sad when the ABC attempts to mislead primary school students with fabrications.

Again, because encouragement of this sort of inaccurate information can eventually flow through to public opinion, it comes back to those who are most in need being put aside in favour of those who can afford to pay to bypass existing systems. It leaves people in refugee camps for longer and that is a disgrace and a tragedy.

Again, I am not saying that those who want to come to Australia and who try to come by boat are not in difficult circumstances. I am sure that none of us would choose to live in some of those places. However, the reality is that our duty should be, first and foremost, to those in most need and those who I have mentioned.

It is a good thing that the government and the minister have been so effective in curtailing the arrival of people by boat. Again, it comes back to the priorities of those who are most in need and also the protection of people's lives, to ensure that no more people drown at sea, as happened under the last government—1,100 people.

We certainly want to stop the waste of taxpayers' money, the $6.6 billion, that was spent on the failed border protection policies of the former government. We certainly want to stop that. There is also a great benefit for our neighbour Indonesia, so they do not have as many people coming into their country, trying to stage there before they get on a boat. Obviously, the success of this policy is good for Australia and good for our neighbours. It is also good for those people who try to come here, whether through the right way or by boat. Again, I applaud the minister.

Of course, I can understand why the Greens and the opposition are so unhappy about this situation. Firstly, the Greens are a disgrace and counterproductive to the best interests of this country and even those people who they seek to speak on behalf of. They truly are a disgrace and it is such a shame that they get any votes. I also think that they are hypocritical. They had nothing to say when people were drowning at sea under the policies that they were supporting of the last government. They had nothing to say at all about that but are more than happy to arc up and talk about the tragic death of the asylum seeker on Manus Island.

I really question the motivation of opposition senator Senator Lines, who described the immigration minister as 'a person with blood on his hands'. I am sure that Senator Lines in previous capacities never spoke at all on the previous deaths at sea. In fact, if she is so thrilled and so indignant about these matters, then I suggest to her that she resign from the Senate and run against me in the electorate of Cowan at the next federal election. I would welcome her pursuing these matters in an election for the lower house. I invite her and encourage her to do that. However, she has probably spent a lot of time working through the factions to try to parachute into the Senate position that she got. I am sure she will not take up that offer. In any case, in the 15 seconds I have remaining, can I say that I fully and utterly endorse the policies of our government and the success of the minister. It is a compassionate response, the correct response and the best thing for refugees in our region. (Time expired)

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the first opportunity since the coalition government were elected for them to present to the House bills concerning money supply: Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-14 and cognate bills. It is very disappointing indeed because, in the bills before the House, we see that the government said one thing before the election and did the complete opposite immediately thereafter. We were promised no surprises and no excuses, but the bill before the House today provides plenty of surprises. The Prime Minister, on the eve of the election, said that there would be:

No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS.

Those are not my words but the words of the Prime Minister, the then Leader of the Opposition. Yet we saw the Treasurer on numerous occasions, after he was sworn into government, saying almost the complete opposite:

All options are on the table.

Those are his words, not mine. Nothing will be spared the devastation of their cuts to public services and benefits to ordinary Australians.

We see already $13.2 million worth of cuts to the health portfolio, $11.5 million of cuts to multicultural programs, and $4.8 million in cuts to education programs. 'There will be no cuts to these programs' were not our words or our guarantees before the election; they were the government's. All these cuts were in no way flagged by the coalition. In fact, they specifically promised that they would be left alone. Far from there being no surprises and no excuses; they are a government full of excuses, full of secrecy, full of surprises.

When you have a look at what is before the House today and compare it to what Labor presented, as we were required to present through the charter of budget honesty, you see a yawning gap. Before the election, in compliance with the charter of budget honesty, Labor had the budget going back into surplus in 2016-17—a surplus of $4.2 billion that year in fact. These were independently audited and produced documents. Now we see a deficit of $17.7 billion by this government and deficits totalling $54.6 billion in the government's forward estimates. What has happened? What is the difference? The difference is decisions the government has chosen to make—and here is where you see their values on display. One of their first acts was to give an $8.8 billion grant to the Reserve Bank of Australia. We all want to see the Reserve Bank of Australia having the liquidity to manage our finances in conformance within its mandate but those opposite are complaining that they do not have the dough to do the normal things that we need our government to do.

What else have the government done? We have seen tax cuts for the big end of town and tax hikes for the rest of us. If you want a tax cut in this country, you had better make sure you own a mining company, because you will get a tax cut and your own special bill before parliament. But, if you are the rest of us, it will be a tax hike. Anyone earning less than $38,000 a year, it will surprise people in the House today, will get a tax increase; that displays the values of those opposite. Who are they governing for? Clearly, it is the big end of town.

This has been a pretty sad week for people looking for work. It has been a pretty sad week for people in work. Yesterday we saw the news that the government is now contemplating axing the Aussie jobs act. The Australian Jobs Act was part of Labor's job creation and job protection policy when it was in government. It had at its centre a very simple proposition. If you are coming to government, state or federal, with a proposition to invest in a major resource development project in this country or if you are coming to government and you are proposing to take a contract for government for a major piece of public works, then we ask you to put in place a plan to ensure that Australian businesses employing Australian workers get a fair chop at winning some of the contracts. It is a fairly simple proposition and one that I would wager most Australians would agree with. So you have got to ask yourself: why is the government contemplating axing that legislation? Who are they governing for: the big end of town or ordinary Australians?

If that is not bad enough, we find out today that the government is now seriously contemplating removing the provisions of the Qantas Sale Act. The Qantas Sale Act is an act which puts requirements upon Qantas—for example: that they have their headquarters here in Australia; that they perform maintenance, catering and other functions here in Australia. They are provisions which indirectly or directly mean that Qantas is an employer of over 30,000 Australians in Australia. It is a critical Australian company.

I heard the Prime Minister on the TV today saying the government has got no business in engaging itself in the airline industry. Deputy Speaker Mitchell, you would know that eight out of 10 airlines in the world are directly or indirectly owned by a government. The net result of the government tinkering with or doing away with the Qantas Sale Act will be to ensure that Qantas is owned by another government either through a sovereign wealth fund or through direct investment. So it has been a sad week for Australian jobs. There are Qantas jobs at risk and jobs for businesses at risk that might otherwise seek some advantage in contracting to the resources sector or to government.

This would be bad enough news in any week but it comes hot on the heels of one of the first increases in unemployment levels in this country since the GFC. Unemployment is going up; employment is going down. In fact there have been 63,000 full-time jobs lost under their watch. That is about 10,000 jobs a month, about 350 jobs a day. This is from the man who wants to be known as the man who is all about creating jobs and who is all about creating employment opportunities.

It has been a sad three months and a sad week for employment in this country. Employment is a critical issue in my electorate because we have one of the highest unemployment levels of any region throughout New South Wales, and youth unemployment is higher still at around 16.5 per cent in the Illawarra, which is well above the state average of 11.8 per cent. These people are looking to government to put in place programs and policies which will help them find their way into a job and, if they have a job, ensure that it is a good, secure job so that they can provide for themselves, their family and their future.

We know that the best chance of getting a decent job is having a good education—which is why the cuts to the education budget are so tragic. In government we put in place the trade training centre program. We funded over 510 trade training centres in schools around Australia. More than 60 per cent of these were in regional areas. There were eight in my electorate. They were well received by all sides of politics.

What is the benefit of a trade training centre? We know that not every kid who goes to school will go on to university but, through a trade training centre in their school, they get the opportunity to get a head start in a trade qualification while they are still at school. So you have to ask yourself: what is going through the head of a government when you see unemployment going up and youth unemployment going up? I know: 'What we will do is rip the guts out of the money which is providing the next generation of kids an opportunity to get a start in life, to get a trade.'

The government simply do not get it. If you want help from this government you had better make sure you are producing Freddo frogs or that you own a mining company. But, if you are like the rest of us, you can go beggar. A billion dollars has been ripped out of the education program—and that is simply not good enough.

I want to talk about a couple of other programs. This was an opportunity for the government to say, 'There are critical support programs for people suffering disadvantages throughout the country, and they rely on these programs to help them back into the workforce or to get their lives back on track.' This was an opportunity for the government to say to the service providers and to the people relying on those services: 'You do not have to worry; you are going to be spared the axe. We are going to cut the hell out of government benefits, services and programs, but those of you in these critical programs that help people into work and help them get their lives back on track, do not have to worry. You do not have to panic; we are going to spare you the savage act of slashing your programs.' That opportunity has not been taken up by the government.

Two programs that are of critical importance in my electorate are the Better Futures program and the Youth Connections program. The Better Futures program was put in place by the former government, identifying 10 local government areas throughout the country for intensive work with long-term unemployed or people at risk of being long-term unemployed—particularly single mums—to help them get their lives back on track and find their way back into work. We have had a lot of success with these programs, getting people into the retail industry and the aged-care sector—for some of these people, it is the first job they have ever had—and helping them to get their lives back on track. You would have to say that that is a good investment and you would have to ask: 'Why hasn't the government taken the opportunity to confirm this program and say that it will continue?' The exact opposite is the case.

Over $850,000 worth of programs were promised and budgeted for under the Better Futures program, including the Skills and Networks for Job Seekers project at the WEA Illawarra—an innovative project connecting young people and long-term unemployed people with local businesses and helping them into a job. It has been axed. The Future Education and Care project run by Illawarra Area Child Care provided flexible care hours to help parents get back into the workforce. Why is that important? We know that when people are getting back into the workforce they might be working shift work. Perhaps they are working a night packing job in the retail sector or perhaps they are working in the aged-care sector doing early morning shifts and late night shifts as a pathway back into employment. If they are a single mum, who is looking after their kids when they are getting back into the workforce?

This program was set up to ensure that we had child care available for those people who did not have access to it while going back to work. It was very innovative and had the support of the entire community. Employers loved it. Funding for the program has not been continued, and they are in limbo. These appropriation bills were an opportunity for the government to say: 'We think that is a good program. It was not our idea. It was not put in place under our watch, but there is no monopoly on a good idea and we will continue this program.'

I could go on about other programs. There is the $7½ million Home of Soccer project, which I am a strong advocate for. There was an opportunity in these appropriation bills to confirm the money for that, but it did not happen. The $50 million to get the Maldon-Dumbarton rail link up and running did not happen. This legislation before the House is a missed opportunity to do the right thing.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to address Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2013-2014. The bills seek appropriation authority from parliament for the measures announced since the 2013-14 budget. In total these bills seek to appropriate $14.8 billion for government departments and agencies. When considering these bills, I think about the concerns and funding needs in my electorate of Paterson. Like all electorates, we face a range of pressing issues; however, the critical issues in my area are: funding for local roads; addressing mobile phone black spots; improving digital television reception; and employment.

Under Labor's reign, road funding in my electorate eroded. As I travel around the electorate of Paterson, from Dungog to Raymond Terrace, from Nelson Bay to Maitland, from Metford to Forster and from Gresford to Nabiac, the common concern amongst the locals is the condition of their local roads. As the elected representative for Paterson, I fought hard for and delivered real federal cash under the Howard government for local roads in Dungog, Great Lakes, Port Stephens and Maitland LGAs. The last six years of the Labor government saw little or nothing spent on local government roads in urgent need of repair.

Shortly the F3 link road, now rebranded the Hunter Expressway, will become a reality when it opens. However, I would like to remind the House that it was the coalition that committed the funding during the 2007 election campaign for the F3 link road between Seahampton and Branxton and it was the member for Hunter who said it should not be funded. I refer to the front page of the Maitland Mercury on 26 November 2007 when he said that he did not think the project was viable or doable. So it is interesting that the Labor Party finally succumbed to public pressure and funded this project.

I was particularly pleased when last year I was able to speak on the joint announcement from the New South Wales and federal governments regarding the funding for the duplication of the Tourle Street Bridge. I have got to say that there was a fair amount of lobbying of Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss to earn his support. Whilst the Tourle Street Bridge is not in my electorate, it serves the people of my electorate who go from the bay to Newcastle each day or, conversely, come into the Williamtown RAAF base or Newcastle Airport from the west. Years ago the former New South Wales Labor government replaced the ageing Tourle Street two-lane bridge with another two-lane bridge. Now that was real smart, because had they built the additional two lanes on that bridge and made it four lanes at the time it would only have cost $15 million extra. Today it will cost in excess of $100 million to provide that same infrastructure. Incompetency is Labor by another name.

The same could be said for the Scone level crossing as it also received funding once the coalition government came to power. For years the member for Hunter, Joel Fitzgibbon, has made much song and dance and all we have seen is money for studies. It was time for rubber to hit the road. People needed action not news articles, and now the coalition federal government has committed $45 million and the New South Wales coalition state government is offering $45 million and we will see an end to the delays there where the town gets cut in half because the coal trains are going through.

Local government road funding remains a big issue in the region. Labor neglected our region over two terms of government. I will continue to work with Dungog, Great Lakes, Port Stephens and Maitland councils to fight for better and safer roads for the area to build on the improvements that were commenced under the former Howard government.

As I said, the issues surrounding mobile telephone reception in my electorate are a major concern to my constituents. It is no secret that around the township of Paterson, from Tocal through to Vacy and Gresford, there is little or no mobile phone reception. I also know full well the issues of capacity constraint at peak tourism times around the Tomaree Peninsula and Forster Tuncurry areas. During the election the coalition announced $100 million funding to address mobile phone black spot and capacity constraint issues. I am currently working for the Paterson area to get a fair share of the $100 million national program to improve mobile coverage throughout regional Australia as part of that program, in particular the $20 million allocated to removing or reducing mobile black spots.

I put a call out to the residents of my electorate for submissions to tell me exactly where the black spots are so that I could prepare a submission. I believe my electorate of Paterson is a prime candidate for the project and I will continue to push for improved mobile phone coverage in locations with unique coverage problems such as areas with high demand for services. Recently, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications, Paul Fletcher, visited Paterson to see the very region that I represent. We met with the residents to discuss the mobile phone black spots in the area and let them add their voices to the discussion. I was encouraged by his visit and the frankness of the concerns raised by residents and I believe it will be enough to get the necessary funding over the line.

I also raised with the parliamentary secretary the issue of NBN towers being constructed and only carrying data services when, by simply adding voice, large areas of poor mobile phone reception would be immediately addressed. Currently three towers in my electorate have commenced construction—at Booral, Nabiac and Darawank—and these services are due to go live in the third quarter of this year. The three remaining towers at Stroud Town, Stroud North and Marshdale are due to begin construction in the second quarter of this year and go live in the third or fourth quarter. A common-sense approach would be to include voice as well as high-speed data on these and other towers.

Without a doubt digital television has been the single largest issue I have ever dealt with in my electorate. In fact, over 50 per cent of the nation's complaints about digital television emanate from the electorate of Paterson. I have spoken in this House many, many times on this issue. But I have not waited around. I have proactively sought meetings with Regional Broadcasters Australia representatives, Deborah Wright, who is also the CEO of NBN television in Newcastle and the Hunter; Steve Brown, the manager of Broadcast Engineering and Technology; and Scott Briggs from Regional Broadcasters Sydney and director of Commercial and Regulatory Affairs, to discuss digital television reception in my electorate.

We formulated a plan. It was developed and has been put forward to install new re-transmission facilities at Nerong, Wallaroo and Peppers Mountain and upgrade transmitters at Dungog and Gan Gan. This follows on from a report prepared by the ACMA in April 2013 on an earlier proposal put forward by Free TV. I have also asked for the investigation of the co-location of a new commercial broadcast re-transmitting unit at Vacy to better serve the Paterson, Vacy and Gresford District. The plan was formalised. I personally briefed the Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull, on 14 November. We cannot continue with poor TV reception in my area in particular for the aged communities in my electorate. I will continue to drive this issue until it is resolved.

One of the significant items proposed for appropriation in the bills is just over $540 million for the Department of Defence for overseas operations to supplement the foreign exchange movements and for the re-appropriation of amounts between the appropriation acts aligning with Defence's current work programs. It will be put towards dealing with priority pressures that were recognised by the former Labor government in their August 2013 economic statement. This includes consolidation of Defence warehousing and fuel storage remediation by Defence to secure future efficiencies. This will have an immediate positive impact on jobs and economic activity in affected regional locations.

In the 2013 election campaign, the coalition committed to stopping the underinvestment in Defence. We understood that Australians wanted to be confident that we would invest in the future security of our nation; that we would not gamble with the security of future Australians by further reducing Defence spending like Labor had done.

One of the many reasons that I am so supportive of the RAAF Base Williamtown is due to the considerable financial and social contribution it makes to the local Hunter community. The base directly employs over 3,500 people, including support staff, and injects over $280 million in salaries alone into my region. In particular, I welcomed the introduction of the government's National Australian Defence Force Family Health Program. As I said, RAAF Base Williamtown is a major employer in my area and I believe that the families of the Australian Defence Force members who have to relocate due to postings on a regular basis are deserving of additional support of free basic medical services.

As well as being the nation's premier RAAF base, Williamtown is the home of the tactical fighter element of the Air Combat Group and the Airborne Early Warning and Control element of Surveillance and Reconnaissance Group. It will also house of the planned F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Lightning aircraft. Over the next 10 years, the government will invest $219 million for the Williamtown Redevelopment stage 2, with a time frame between 2014 and 2019 and $679 million for new air combat capability works and $200 million for runway extensions.

This is a welcome investment as unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, is a crippling issue in my electorate—especially with the downturns in the mining and manufacturing industries and the closure of many companies, in part due to the destructive carbon tax. The former Rudd-Gillard government cut almost $30 billion out of Defence through broken promises, deferments, delays and cancellations. We cannot expect our Defence Force continually to do more with less and maintain our national security at a high level. The coalition is committed to rebuilding a Defence Force that is properly resourced, equipped and managed after six long years of talk, decline and underinvestment by Labor.

The other significant item proposed for appropriation in the bill is just over $1.1 billion for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, particularly including amounts for offshore asylum processing. This bill allocates funding for offshore processing of illegal maritime arrivals and to address the backlog of illegal maritime arrivals. Funding for more effective border protection arrangements will support a continued reduction in the number of people taking the perilous risk of ocean crossings.

In 2013, the coalition government made an election promise to establish a comprehensive regional deterrence framework with our neighbours to stop any asylum seekers transiting through our region in an attempt to gain illegal entry to Australia. Unlike the former Labor government, the coalition believes that an effective regional solution must have a single-minded focus on deterrence, preventing secondary movement of asylum seekers into our region. Labor's focus was processing and resettlement of those coming into the region and seeking to enter Australia illegally, not on deterring their arrival in the first place.

The previous government also only ever intended to send one in six arrivals offshore. In the economic statement in August last year, they budgeted to send one in six. The rest were to come to Australia and be released into the community on bridging visas or placed in held detention. In practice, they did just that: they only sent one in six arrivals offshore. They did not even provision adequately for the one in six. Contracts expired at the end of January this year. There was no money for 2013-14 year; the money ran out in January. The former Labor government left the Australian people with an enormous funding black hole. And they have the hide to stand up here and complain about conditions in camps.

This black hole would have been bigger, but the policies that the coalition government is putting into place are working and arrivals have reduced by more than 80 per cent since the election—and more recently have stopped. The coalition is fixing up an illegal arrival problem that Labor solely created: there were no arrivals before the election in 2007. This problem is one solely of Labor's making.

Now we need to address their funding black hole on offshore processing. The coalition will stop the boats by implementing our full range of policies, including ensuring that offshore processing is run properly—not the half-hearted attempt and misleading version Labor left the Australian people. Under the coalition, we have committed the funding to ensure that all those who seek to enter Australia illegally by boat will go to Nauru or Manus Island, with no exceptions. No exceptions.

Under Operation Sovereign Borders, the government is more than doubling the capacity of offshore processing at Nauru and Manus Island, reversing underfunding and undercapacity left by the previous incompetent government. The previous Labor government restored offshore processing in name only. It takes more than a press conference, a few flags and a signing ceremony to actually stop the boats.

The former Labor government left us with a big mess and a massive debt. They recklessly overspent and underplanned. So now the coalition needs to balance the books and spend a little more realistically. I pledge my support for the bills, but these bills have come about in large part because of the mismanagement of the former Labor government.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2013-2014 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014.

I have spoken in this House about the many workers at Toyota and Holden in Port Melbourne, in my electorate, who have suffered, as a consequence of the government's goading—in the case of Holden—and negligence—in the case of Toyota—the non-continuation of the operations of those major companies.

In both cases they successfully exported tens of millions of dollars of cars to the Middle East until 2008, until the sharp rise in the Australian dollar. This country has to earn export dollars somewhere in the future after the mining boom. We will have no car manufacturing in this country, when the Australian dollar declines, as a result of this government's goading and negligence, as I said. That is a topic for another day.

One area that does concern me about the government's appropriations is the Prime Minister's pledge, and that of his team, before 7 September—before the election:

I offer the government bipartisan support for a responsible and timely NDIS.

After the election claims by the Treasurer were reported on 18 December in The Australian:

THE National Disability Insurance Scheme has already been hit by a "massive blowout'' in costs and will have to be made more efficient, Joe Hockey says.

This was not said before the election. Before the election we also had similar claims about education. Thankfully, we have seen the government retreat from those.

Let me turn to some of the specific areas of appropriation in my electorate. One area of interest I particularly want to focus on is the $10 million announced to transform Junction Oval as a hub for Cricket Victoria. This was designed to fund the Centre for Diversity through Cricket involving the national headquarters for women's cricket, for Indigenous cricket and for social inclusion of new migrants, including some of the very young men from the Subcontinent who have subsequently played for Australia. It was to provide training for all of them as it is becoming more and more difficult to use the MCG. In keeping with the theme of cuts, this project has been revoked and the short-sighted policy has prevailed. Junction Oval remains in a terrible state and needs investment. Local people, local cricket and national cricket, both women's and Indigenous, will all miss out.

In the arts, Creative Partnerships Australia has already closed its offices in Adelaide, Hobart and Canberra. Yesterday in Senate estimates Minister Brandis confirmed that funding for the arts in our cities and regional areas will be reduced under this government. Just how deep the cuts will be remains to be seen. I believe the minister's favourite think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs, has suggested cutting off funding for the arts, taking us back to the 1930s. Minister Brandis claimed that arts funding was reduced under Labor. This is untrue. Under former Ministers Crean and Burke—and I was Mr Burke's parliamentary secretary—Labor established the Creative Australia policy, the first Australian cultural policy in nearly 20 years. Creative Australia delivered $235 million in fully funded new investment in the arts on top of the $64 million announced during the policy development process. This included $75 million for the Australia Council and $69 million for other national cultural institutions.

While on the topic of ideological zealotry, it would be remiss of me not to mention the government's plan to dump section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Sections 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act were introduced in response to recommendations of major inquiries, including the National Inquiry into Racist Violence and the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. These inquiries found that racial hatred and vilification caused psychological harm to their targets and reinforced other forms of discrimination and exclusion. They found that low-level behaviour like this softens the environment for more severe acts of harassment, intimidation and even violence by impliedly condoning such acts.

I have the agreement of the opposition and the government to table a complete set of complaints since the act was established in 1995. It shows complaints received and outcomes of complaints received, conciliated and withdrawn. I seek permission to table that document.

Leave granted.

The table shows that since 1995 there have been 1,656 complaints received under section 18C and of those complaints 478 were referred to conciliation and the remainder were withdrawn or terminated for a number of reasons. Only eight were required to go to court. The whole purpose of section 18C is to promote tolerance by bringing parties together to discuss the subject of their complaint and arrive at a conciliated and agreed outcome. Conciliation meetings that are resolved required the following outcomes: an apology; an agreement to remove offensive material; systemic outcomes, such as changes to policies, procedures and training of staff or individuals; or even the payment of compensation.

Similarly, the new 'freedom commissioner' Tim Wilson, another of their warriors blinded by ideology, has restated his demand for the abolition of section 18C. Strangely, it is the most effective legislative arm of the agency that he works for. I have not come across a situation like this where a public servant in an agency is calling for the abolition of the most effective work of that agency.

Fifty-three per cent of racial vilification complaints in 2012-13 were resolved by conciliation. Less than three per cent of hatred complaints proceeded to court, according to the Human Rights Commission. This small percentage of complaints referred to court illustrates that the use of section 18C under the discrimination act is not being abused. It should not be repealed. Why are we getting rid of it? What is the mindset of those in the coalition—and I am sure in this room there are people from the coalition who do not share those views?

The fervour of the coalition and their tribunes in the Murdoch echo chamber on this issue reflects an attempt to repeal what they call the Bolt laws. Section 18C reinforces pluralist Australia and complaints are resolved by a process of reconciliation. It worked well under that well-known socialist John Howard, the former Prime Minister. For the years that that socialist John Howard was in office he allowed section 18C to proceed. He saw that it was mainly a process of reconciliation and, as a person genuinely committed to pluralist Australia—

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding appropriate language. I would like the speaker to withdraw the remark that he has made several times about the previous Prime Minister. I find it offensive.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it was used with deep irony of course. Mr Howard was not a socialist. I was seeking to juxtapose his very tolerant views on these issues with the views of the current government.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Melbourne Ports, if you decide you are going to withdraw, can you use the words 'I withdraw'?

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In deference to my friend the member for Murray, I am happy to withdraw. The majority in this government feel it should be abolished because the IPA feel that in the Bolt case he was treated harshly as a result of an interpretation by a judge of section 18C.

The member for Fairfax has vacated the chamber, but I want to turn to the issue of free market ideology taking over what is in the public's best interest with Australia Post. Australia Post delivers services that are essential to the citizens and businesses of Australia, yet we might see a reduction in these services and the closure of regional offices. Treasurer Hockey has not made any official statements regarding the possible sale yet, as far as I know, but we have seen Australia Post attempting to raise its bottom line by increasing the price of stamps from 60c to 70c, albeit with a 60c three-year freeze for government concession card holders. I think it will cost more to run that concession than to keep stamps at 60c. This rise, the second since 2010, has been approved by the ACCC and will affect Australian citizens and businesses from 31 March. Australia Post claims that this rise must be implemented because of losses incurred from digital communication and the steady decline in what it disparages as 'snail mail'. It is very strange for an organisation that is involved in communications between people, primarily the mail between businesses and people, disparaging its own product and calling it 'snail mail'.

Australia Post CEO, Ahmed Fahour, has stated that he has seen a loss of $218 million in regular mail delivery between 2012 and 2013. The use of regular mail is slowing down, but the express parcel business is fast growing. With an increase in digital communication, we have seen an increase in online shopping and other online services. Australia Post took over 100 per cent of StarTrack, a leading parcel and express freight service, by buying out its joint venture partner Qantas for $400 million—probably one of the few times Qantas has made some money recently. In just one year, between 2012 and 2013, StarTrack brought in a 29 per cent increase in earnings to $355 million. Australia Post's profit commensurately rose to $811.9 million last year.

The government will undeniably ignore the public's interest in maintaining regular mail services. Again, I am sure not all people here, including people from the country, will support that, but let us hope the agrarian socialists, led by the member for New England, do not sell us out on this one. Let us hope that they can twist the arms of what I see as the dominant Sydney libertarian bankers faction of this government and keep regular services that the Australian people expect, such as normal, regular mail. Australia Post is a profitable business by any measure, and the public are owed services and not just profits by people who would seek to be privatised, so perhaps executive salaries can be promoted at a level beyond even what they are at the moment. In my view, that would be a quick fix solution for the government and the problem with the budget. Inflating the 'crisis' in Australia Post while not talking about areas in which it is expanding is a poor attempt to veil what is clearly an ideological agenda about privatisation without a view to the public interest.

In the last minutes I have, let me turn to the Melbourne Grand Prix. Last year Victorian taxpayers were forced to pay billionaire promoter Bernie Ecclestone $30 million a year for his licence fee alone. The five-year contract between the grand prix and the Victorian government has cost taxpayers $170 million. The licence fee was $31 million in 2011. By 2015 it will be nearly $40 million. Ecclestone has received $55 million in fees from the Grand Prix Corporation this year. He has threatened, if the cash handout is cut, that Melbourne will lose the race. Attendance is at an all-time low. At the moment the $55 million accounts for $800 per person attending the Melbourne Grand Prix by my calculation. It would be better if the Premier of Victoria and Mr Ron Walker stood in the Bourke Street Mall and distributed hundred dollar bills to Melburnians—it would cost them less! Perhaps they could spend the money saved from the grand prix on the many problems that the Victorian government has said it is going to fix. It is outrageous that Victorian taxpayers are spending $800 per person to attend this unpopular race. If these are not good enough reasons to raise the chequered flag on the grand prix, I do not know what is.

Finally, I turn to the Australian Defence Force's participation in this private event, which, over the years, has been at various levels—$113,000 in 2013. The total contribution of the Air Force to this event has been $3,846,000. The RAAF did not participate in this event for a couple of years. I am a strong supporter of the ADF; however, I do not believe it is necessary to conduct low-flying operations over residential suburbs. My constituents hate it and I have asked the Air Force to consider that. Against my advice, it will proceed with it. It is a blatant waste of Air Force money. There are much better things it could be spent on. The F-35 could do with $3,846,000, rather than Mr Ecclestone's grand prix. He is an unsuitable person, in my view, to be in receipt of such government largesse—whether it is from the federal government indirectly via the Air Force or directly via the Victorian government—as he is about to be arraigned before a corruption trial in Germany for bribing a German banker. (Time expired)

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Underlying these appropriation bills is a truism—that is, strategy without resources is an illusion. And that is an observation with great relevance to the last six years of our country's economic history. That is because our economic freedom of action has been constrained by $123 billion in accumulated deficits and peak debt approaching an unprecedented trajectory to $667 billion. And all of this in just six years of Labor and Labor-Green governments. Our loss of economic freedom of action at the national level has been exacerbated in Tasmania by the double whammy of a Labor-Green government in Hobart.

During the past 16 years of Labor government in Tasmania, the size of the state budget has ballooned from $2 billion to $5 billion. And as Tasmanians head to the polling booths on 15 March, they are entitled to ask, 'How exactly has our state benefitted from this explosion in expenditure?'

Whether it is jobs, health, education or levels of socioeconomic disadvantage, Tasmania's performance lags behind every mainland state. Tasmania has by far the worst outcomes of any state in the Commonwealth. And yet when Labor came to power in Tasmania in 1998, the path to a brighter economic future had been laid out for them. Two years previously, during the 1996 federal election campaign, the coalition had initiated a joint Commonwealth-Tasmanian review into the Tasmanian economy. The result was the 1997 Nixon report, produced by Fraser government cabinet minister, the Hon. Peter Nixon AO.

Nixon's report highlighted five critical problems underpinning Tasmania's poor economic performance. These related to governance, debt, sub-optimal educational outcomes, a business environment that was unattractive to investors, and planning processes that were too complex. Nixon detailed 122 separate recommendations and he particularly highlighted the importance of    ensuring that Tasmania's debt burden was kept manageable, that costs on business were kept as low as possible, that Tasmania's industry development policy was focused on the key strategic advantages of our state, and that local jobs were created to address outbound migration. After 16 years of hard Labor, Deputy Speaker, you will be disappointed to hear that the key problems retarding Tasmania's prosperity are very similar to those highlighted by the Hon. Peter Nixon AO. Less than three weeks out from the Tasmanian state election, the key problems dominating the campaign are jobs, unsustainable government debt, sub-optimal education and health outcomes, obstacles to investment, and over-regulation. Tasmania seems to have been stuck in a time warp for the last 16 years, where the Labor faces have changed but the problems have remained the same.

Interestingly, Nixon also reported that it was too easy for minority groups to use the system to oppose developments that would benefit our state. And again there is a sense of déjà vu here, with minority groups, like the Greens and activist groups, exercising a disproportionate influence on Tasmania's future. Two Tasmanian Greens party members have been ministers in the Labor cabinet these past four years, until the inevitable fake divorce a few weeks ago—but only after parliament had risen for the last time before the election was called. Tasmania has become a place where loud minorities with megaphones define much of its politics, to the detriment of the silent majority. Tasmania is in economic crisis, requiring a rescue mission. That is why we announced an Economic Growth Recovery Plan for Tasmania on 15 August last year. And that is why an entire section of the Governor-General's speech to open the 44th Parliament was devoted to Tasmania's economic recovery. It is little wonder, when you consider the performance of the Labor government during the last 16 years in Tasmania. The $5 billion budget in Tasmania is 60 per cent funded by the Commonwealth, and 54 per cent of the budget is spent on health and education—yet the state of our hospitals and the state of our economic performance is a distant last on national benchmarks.

It was with a heavy heart that I listened to Tasmania's literacy crisis being exposed on the ABC's Lateline television program on 19 February 2014. I listened to Dr Ben Jensen of the Grattan Institute, who has recently been appointed to the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group, suggest that the literacy crisis in Tasmania could become unmanageable within the next 10 years—'unmanageable' is the word that he used. At least half of Tasmania's population cannot read or write properly—a record of neglect that constitutes a shameful Labor legacy. The latest global report card on 15-year-olds found that more than half of the state's students fell below the national baseline for maths, compared to 42 per cent nationally. Forty-seven per cent failed the minimum standard of English, compared to 36 per cent nationally. With so much money being allocated to education in Tasmania, the results clearly don't reflect that investment—despite the fact that Tasmania's teacher-to-student ratios are nine per cent higher than those on the mainland.

Just this week we were presented with a disturbing report on rising youth unemployment across the country. It was a disturbing report because many young people will now find that transition from school to work much more difficult than previous generations. It was disturbing most of all because my home state of Tasmania performed worst of all the states and territories. One in five young people in Tasmania aged 15-24 are without work: a statistic that heightens the risk of generational disadvantage, poor health outcomes, and things like homelessness. Yet on 22 December last year, the Labor Premier, Lara Giddings, was quoted in The Examiner, the main paper in Northern Tasmania, as saying, '…there will be jobs for your children. There are jobs today for your children too.' Well, where are they, Premier?

I'm not sure which parallel universe Premier Giddings is living in, but the ABS monthly unemployment reports and the youth unemployment report released just in the last week highlight just how out of touch this Premier is with reality. Her performance as Treasurer was just as bad, when you consider the crisis in Tasmania's finances. In the lead-up to the state election on 15 March, the Mid-Year Financial Update for 2013-14 revealed some appalling statistics. The underlying budget deficit was estimated to be $365.9 million. This represents a $100 million deterioration since the 2013-14 budget was prepared—Ms Giddings has clearly modelled her performance on that of the member for Lilley, who has achieved similarly appalling outcomes in the federal budget. This result has effectively blown any prospect of a return to surplus in the forward estimates, which was anticipated to be a wafer-thin $9.9 million in 2016-17—again, a Swan-like result. There is a spooky resemblance between the Labor-Green government's performance in Tasmania, and that of its federal counterpart. This is best illustrated by examining the decline in the underlying budget position since the first estimate of the current budget.

Three years ago, Labor's estimate for the 2013-14 budget was an underlying surplus of $53.4 million. That has now been revised to a massive deficit of $365.9 million, representing deterioration in the budget's underlying estimate of $419.3 million. In other words, between 2010-11 and the 2013-14 mid-year update, this Labor-Greens minority government has blown the budget by $419.3 million. That is despite the fact that they signed up to a fiscal strategy to reel in expenditure as revenues collapsed on the back of deteriorating economic performance at a national level under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd minority governments.

You may ask the question: why does this matter? Running an underlying deficit of $365.9 million in a small state like Tasmania suggests that the sustainability of ongoing operations is in peril. A fiscal deficit of $441 million represents a 30 per cent deterioration in the budget estimate, which means that the capacity of government to fund its capital expenditure is in peril. The unfunded superannuation liability in Tasmania as at 31 December last year stood at $6.173 billion—an appalling and extraordinary result.

In response to the emerging dire financial circumstances evident in the 2011-12 mid-year update, the Premier and treasurer Lara Giddings said:

… there is now no more hay left in the barn. We are living beyond our means and spending must be cut in line with our reduced income so we do not go back into net debt.

Two years later, not only is there no more hay in the barn but the barn has been burned down and the surrounding property has been sold to fund Labor's unsustainable approach to spending. Just as Mr Rudd, Ms Gillard and the member for Swan wrecked the joint federally, Premier Giddings and her Greens partners have wrecked Tasmania's economy.

In place of the damage caused by the Labor-Greens alliance in Hobart and Canberra, a different approach is needed. Tasmania is a small, sub-national, peripheral economy. While it is true that regions can change their industrial profile over time, small economies like Tasmania's are limited in achieving this due to: scope and scale challenges; labour markets, skills and investment uncertainty; and demand and supply distortions. Transition or transformation of an economy like Tasmania's cannot occur without major investment, and it happens quite slowly. Diversification in economic terms is almost always strongly linked to existing industrial structures. Transition becomes almost impossible when the very foundation for change is shut down or removed from productive capacity. For example, Labor-Greens efforts to close down native logging in Tasmania under the Tasmanian Forest Agreement is not just a political travesty but a regional development policy failure. This is what happens when unelected, self-interested groups hijack the policy process and the Labor Party allows the disproportionate policy influence of the Greens party to have its way.

A significant forest resource must be retained beyond the current lockups as the foundation for innovation and constructing competitive advantage for Tasmania. You cannot simply kill off forestry and mining, which constitute our competitive advantage, in Tasmania and purport to fill that vacuum with boutique industries like blueberries, electric cars and film making, as some Greens politicians have proposed—quite to the contrary. Innovating and connecting different but related activities in existing strong sectors of the Tasmanian economy is essential for a more prosperous future. Labor and Greens politicians in Tasmania should do some study on the concept of related variety and how that is particularly applicable to our state.

We need new business models characterised by horizontal relationships between and across sectors, not just vertical or cooperative relationships within sectors. Collaboration becomes the business model to drive the next platform of innovation for regional economies like Tasmania's that are trying to do more with less. The important role for government is in building the platforms of innovation at a regional level through a focus on related variety and collaboration.

After 16 years of stagnation under Labor, Tasmania needs a new way. It needs a majority Liberal government in Hobart with fresh ideas, empowered to drive the changes we need for a prosperous future. On 15 March, Tasmanians have an important choice to make: whether to reward Labor for its continuing failures in relation to jobs, education, health, front-line service delivery and investment or to vote for a majority Liberal government with new ideas and new vitality and finally get Tasmania off the bottom of national benchmark lists. We must do what Labor failed to do: address critical deficiencies and reset our economic course to a brighter future. I hope Tasmania seizes the opportunity for change on 15 March. I thank the House.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Bass just spent his entire speech railing against alliances with the Greens. I point out that before the election this government repeatedly said that, if debt is the problem, more debt is not the answer. But, after the election, what did they do? They did a deal with the Greens to legislate for an unlimited debt limit. I repeat: they entered into an unholy alliance with the Greens to legislate for an unlimited debt limit. Now they come before the House seeking approval for $14 billion in additional expenditure.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Wills gave you the courtesy of silence.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we see in this bill is the seeking of parliamentary approval for an additional $14.8 billion in 2013-14. The biggest item being sought here is $8.8 billion for the Reserve Bank, one of the largest contributors to this additional appropriation.

On Monday I said that what we need as economic objectives are things like low unemployment, low inflation, low interest rates and a balanced budget. In my view, they are more exciting objectives than growth, which is not an end in itself. The Treasurer came in, in question time, and attacked these comments about balancing the books, but what we see with this legislation is the coalition doing the exact opposite of what was suggested by its comments about a budget emergency: it is blowing out the budget deficit by nearly $17 billion.

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

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the honourable member for Wills will have leave to continue his remarks.