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

In question time this week, the Treasurer had a crack at me for making a statement of the bleeding obvious that growth is not an end in itself. The Treasurer is a 'growth artist'—that is abundantly clear—but someone has to point out that the emperor has no clothes. The member for Griffith, in her first speech, delivered recently, talked about the debilitating effects of inequality. A report by Oxfam a month ago stated that the richest 85 people in the world own as much wealth as the bottom half of the world's population, some 3½ billion people, and that half of the world's wealth is owned by just one per cent of the world's population. Indeed, the situation is getting worse. In nearly every country Oxfam surveyed, economic inequality has increased since 1980. The richest one per cent in the US more than doubled their share of national income. In Australia, the richest one per cent doubled their share. After the GFC, the wealthiest one per cent in the US captured 95 per cent of post-crisis growth, while the bottom 90 per cent became poorer. Growth is not an end in itself. Full employment, work for all who want it, is a better objective.

Treasurer Hockey does not even talk about GDP per capita. More people living in your street is growth but it does not mean you are better off. What is the alternative to this government's budget strategy? Perhaps if I say I am going to spend the next 10 minutes talking about Scandinavian models I will attract a larger audience. I think we should spend more time considering the Scandinavian models. The fact is that the four main Nordic countries—Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland—are doing well. If you could be reborn anywhere in the world, you would want to be a Viking, as The Economist said in a report on the Nordic countries. The Nordic cluster at the top of the league tables of everything from economic competitiveness to social health, to happiness. They have avoided both southern Europe's economic paralysis and America's extreme inequality. These nations also have low population growth, with a combined population of less than 25 million, with expected growth of only three million to less than 28 million by 2050. By comparison, Australia is 23 million but with projected growth to between 36 million and 40 million by 2050.

Interestingly, the Oxfam report on inequality shows Australia was second only to the United States on the percentage increase in share of income of the richest one per cent between 1980 and 2012. During that same period, Australia's population grew by over 50 per cent, second only to Singapore. Rapid population growth does correlate with increasing inequality.

Nordic governments demonstrate it is possible to combine competitive capitalism with a larger state and a smaller population: they employ 30 per cent of their workforce in the public sector compared with an OECD average of 15 per cent. They are also transparent, something the Liberal government would do well to emulate rather than hiding in the shadows and using euphemisms like 'green tape'. The West promotes transparency, but the Nordics 'walk the walk'.

The performance of schools and hospitals is measured. Governments are forced to operate in the harsh light of day. Sweden gives everyone access to official records.

There is also an emphasis on the long term, with policies in place to mitigate the harsher effects of capitalism. Denmark, for example, has a system of 'flexicurity' that makes it easier for employers to sack people but provides support and training for the unemployed. An active labour market policy in Nordic countries helps improve qualifications among the unemployed through courses and education, and also encourages the unemployed to actively focus on job seeking. The social security net is not passive, in the sense that all may choose freely between working or not; rather, it provides a secure income as long as the demand for active participation in the labour market is met. Participation in the labour market is also supported by welfare schemes such as child care. An extensive childcare system has a direct welfare effect for families and helps to socialise children. It also helps to ensure gender equality in terms of opportunities to participate in the labour market.

The Liberal government obsessively believes in self-correcting free markets and that workers who have lost their jobs can move seamlessly into other work. The Prime Minister has even referred to this as 'liberating'. But it simply does not work that way. Just ask the workers at Ford, Holden, Toyota, Alcoa or—this morning—Qantas who face the prospect of being added to the likes of the 59-year-old maintenance fitter and turner I told the House about a fortnight ago, who was retrenched back in 2008 and, notwithstanding his qualifications, has only worked a handful of weeks ever since. I wonder what the millions of workers who remain unemployed after 'self-correcting' markets blew up the world economy in 2008 think of the 'liberating' view.

Unlike the Liberal government, which seeks to disparage welfare, the Nordic countries consider the welfare state to be a strength when it comes to economic development. Not only does the welfare state benefit the whole population; it has a positive effect on the economy. The public sector and welfare services have helped the countries to develop a highly skilled workforce and a high level of employment. This, combined with a stable civil society, a strong democratic tradition and an effective regulatory framework, has led to the emergence in the region of extensive social capital, which is one of the main pillars of the Nordic economy.

When it comes to long-term policy vision, Norway's sovereign wealth fund, currently worth $900 billion, is what we should have done years ago and should still do. Set up in 1990, the fund owns around one per cent of the world's stocks, as well as bonds and real estate from London to Boston, making the Nordic nation an exception when others are struggling under a mountain of debts. The fund, equivalent to 183 per cent of 2013 gross domestic product, is expected to peak at 220 per cent around 2030. It is worth $180,000 for every Norwegian man, woman and child. I know that if the Liberal government came to office with something like that, they would sell it off at once. But the Norwegian government uses it to benefit the economy.

As the chief economist at DNB Markets points out, 'The fund is a success in the sense that parliament has managed to set aside money for the future,' which is something Australia should have done but squandered the opportunity. A 2008 paper co-authored by Treasury official Kirsty Laurie found that, from 2004-05 onwards, the Howard government spent 94 per cent of a $330 billion increase in tax revenue from the resources boom.

Norway's management of their resources boom and Australia's management of ours could not be more different. Norway has maintained a much larger manufacturing sector than Australia—currently just under 30 per cent per working age population. Norway has an employment to working age population ratio that is five percentage points higher than Australia's and an unemployment rate of 3.3 per cent compared to ours at six per cent. Between 1980 and 2010, the cumulative current account surplus for Norway was 200 per cent of GDP, while for Australia the outcome was a cumulative current account deficit of 127 per cent of GDP.

Norway has a population growth rate a third of Australia's and little migration. Norway has instead an aggressive industry policy to maximise pull-over effects to manufacturing from resource expansion. This was done by local content targets during resource expansion and operation, and by subsidies, investment support, training et cetera to ensure manufacturing could meet local content targets at minimum cost to the resources sector. Effective taxation of the resources sector was also implemented, which provided funding to support economy-wide education and training programs; knowledge clusters for research, development and innovation; and regional adjustment and infrastructure expansion.

The sovereign wealth fund's investments offshore have minimised the appreciation of the Norwegian currency, in contrast to Australia, where a high Australian dollar has put pressure on the competitiveness of manufacturing, which in 2004 contributed 12.5 per cent to our economic output but today contributes just seven per cent. There is absolutely no doubt that Australia has contracted Dutch disease. Perhaps we should call ours 'Aus-teoporosis'! Mining has grown but manufacturing has shrunk.

Rather than quarantining our windfall gains generated during the early years of the resources boom, the Howard government returned the cash to taxpayers, fuelling a borrowing binge which increased inflation and interest rates, making Australia a very expensive country in which to do business. Ian Verrender recently pointed out in an article on how we squandered the resources boom:

That was exacerbated by a currency surging on the back of the vast capital inflows required for new mine construction and expansion.

In support of sovereign wealth funds, Ian Verrender said:

How could such a fund have helped us? By investing offshore, it could have helped stabilise the currency, partially offsetting the dollar-boosting effect of a resources boom, thereby easing pressure on our manufacturing and services industries.

As the Liberal government's Commission of Audit look for savings in the budget, they would be wise to dispense with the so-called Washington Consensus about the role of government and instead look to Sweden's grand bargain of fiscal virtue alongside a generous welfare state. Among other benefits, it keeps the employment of women at levels most other nations can only dream of and, on most measures, maintains an equal society which is the envy of the Western world. I heard on the radio this morning that the parliamentary secretary for regulation wants to get rid of the gender-reporting requirements for women in the workforce because they are too onerous. They are not that onerous for the Abbott cabinet: you just go, 'One,' and stop—that is it.

The Economist has reported that Sweden has:

… donned the golden straitjacket of fiscal orthodoxy with its pledge to produce a fiscal surplus over the economic cycle. Its public debt fell from 70% of GDP in 1993 to 37% in 2010, and its budget moved from an 11% deficit to a surplus … over the same period.

Sweden's public accounts, in contrast to the rest of Europe, have swung back into balance after the global financial crisis, and it remains one of the few countries in the OECD whose financial assets considerably exceed its liabilities.

It is a country where more than seven out of 10 workers are members of unions and where top CEO pay has not risen nearly as dramatically as it has in America. Not surprisingly given all this, Swedes' trust in government is over 60 per cent, being amongst the highest in the Western world. This is a vindication for a model based on relative equality and supportive welfare that can coexist alongside a balanced budget funded by high taxation in an economy that is performing well for all of its citizens and not just for vested interests. The lesson from the Nordic countries is a practical one rather than an ideological one. The state is popular not because it is big but because it works in practice.

The Liberal government should abandon their economic fundamentalist agenda. For Australia to progress, we need to look less at tired orthodoxies from either the Left or the Right and study the Scandinavian models instead.

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

The member for Wills began his address talking about the emperor not having any clothes, and I would like to stay on the same theme. On 29 May 2013, in a second reading speech, some fine words were read by the former Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and now Leader of the Opposition:

The Gillard government believes that everyone who is able to work should be able to benefit from the economic security and dignity that having a job brings, which is why we are introducing this bill to help more unemployed Australians to transition into work.

Having a job is essential in ensuring that all Australians can share in the benefits of Australia's economic strength and receive the promise of a long, good life that comes with being an Australian.

… … …

In combination, the measures contained in this bill amend the social security law to provide around $300 million to improve the incentive for income support recipients to work, support them in the transition to work and provide extra assistance to engage in study and training.

This package, which I support wholeheartedly, represents the very strong advocacy of government MPs, including the member for Canberra, the member for Page, the member for Chifley and the member for Throsby, amongst many others. I also acknowledge the advocacy of the council of single mothers.

Yes, the member for Canberra is still here, the member for Chifley is still here and the member for Throsby is still here, but I wonder how many single-parent families put paid to the future employment in this House of the then member for Page.

A dark day dawned on 1 January 2013 as the laughably named Fair Work Incentives Bill came into effect, forcing all single-parent families whose youngest child had turned eight onto the Newstart allowance. For a family getting by on the bare minimum it was a savage blow. It did not herald a new start, but rather an abrupt halt. In fact, the only thing that starts when families are forced onto this lesser benefit is a deeper slide into poverty. It is their children I think of most. Former Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke had the grand aspiration that no child would live in poverty by 1990, but his party's descendants seemed to have the opposite plan. Sole parents have been trying to dig themselves out of poverty, and the Labor Party would not even give them a spade.

In my electorate of McMillan there are 15,610 people living in single-parent households, among them almost 10,000 children. Around the country, 69,000 families have been stung by this discriminatory legislation. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, said on 29 May last year that this legislation would 'provide Australians receiving income support with greater incentives and support to find and keep a job'. The 'incentives' Mr Shorten alluded to were nothing but a mighty big whack with a mighty big stick. Sole parents working 15 hours a fortnight on the minimum wage now have to work twice as long just to get back what they lost.

A single parent on Newstart with two children—one aged eight, the other 12—loses $160 per fortnight just in benefits. She cobbles together a weekly income from family tax benefits A and B, $2.03 from her telephone allowance payment and $4.07 from the income support bonus. This family's rent alone costs $350 a week. The incentive to work has nothing to do with breaking the shackles of disadvantage and everything to do with the survival of that family. Is she rewarded for her commitment to the workforce? No: for every dollar over $62 per fortnight she earns in paid employment, 40c in the dollar is taken from her benefits.

Someone earning $180,000 per annum is taxed just 33c in the dollar. Where is the equity? Where is the justice? Incentives, indeed! On the other side of the divide, a partnered mother whose husband earns $130,000 per year can still work part time, earning $200 per week. Is there a penalty? No: as a nice bonus she receives family benefits of $85.56 per fortnight.

While sole parents were told in no uncertain terms by the former Labor government to get off their lazy backsides, the truth was and still is that most were already working—some 60 per cent, in fact—with most in part-time and casual jobs battling alone to try and meet the parenting and cost pressures of raising a family. Such support, indeed! Not only do sole parents pushed onto the Newstart allowance receive less but they are also allowed to earn less under the previous Labor government's legislation. They are no longer entitled to earn $180.60 per fortnight with an additional $24.60 per child before their benefits are reduced, but now only $62. In addition, the total amount they can earn before their benefits are taken away altogether is $519.35 per fortnight less than what it was.

Under the Work Bonus Scheme a single age pensioner can earn $250 a fortnight in private income without fear of losing benefits. In fact, a pensioner earning $300 a fortnight in private income will only be assessed on $50 if he or she has no other income sources. Because $50 is less than the pension income test-free area of $156 a fortnight, he or she will still receive the maximum rate of the age pension. The pensioner can earn up to $460 per fortnight and nothing is lost.

I do not question the pensioner's right to a chance of earning extra income, but why not a single parent too? Magnanimously, the Labor government decided to bump up the sole-parent minimum earning threshold by $38 a fortnight, a measure to take effect on 20 March this year! It was sold as a wonderful win for those families struggling on Newstart, but the reality is that its effect will be negligible. While our single pensioner can earn up to $406 a fortnight before their benefits are touched, our sole parent with two children earning the same amount from private income loses 34.4 per cent of their welfare allowance, or $186.50. Mr Shorten trumpeted the credentials of this insidious legislation, saying:

… everyone who is able to work should be able to benefit from the economic security and dignity that having a job brings.

I read that out before.

"This Government wants to avoid the entrenched disadvantage that can arise from long periods of joblessness,” Minister Shorten said.

Fine words, fine sentiments, but how could a woman raising a family alone—and let us not forget sole-parent dads too—believe that the former Labor government was really trying to help her by taking away $110 a week?

In short—

the Leader of the Opposition said—

this is about helping job seekers being able to fulfil the potential which exists in all Australians.

Inexplicably, he did not seem aware of the economic carnage his party had left in its wake. Job seekers were one thing but job getters were a much rarer breed. Incentives and support are truly what sole-parent families need, not just Labor definitions.

Targeting one of the most vulnerable groups in our community, being single-parent families, not only increases the hardship of these people who are already under stress but can compound when the social and emotional impact of these cuts begin to manifest themselves in later life. The economics of reducing the funding to our most vulnerable citizens balanced against these social impacts is a gamble that this nation should not take.

If you indulge me, Deputy Speaker Mitchell, there are a few other things that need to be considered, especially for single parents in rural areas such as mine—and yours. For a single mum raising three small children with no support there are several assumptions being made in this legislation. One is that suitable child care before and after school, not to mention school holidays, is available. For the mother who works in a supermarket or cleans offices, child care is not available to assist them when they have to work early morning shifts or late evenings. The second assumption is that public transport is available. Yes, there are many rural areas with one bus a day to a regional centre, but they do not necessarily fit with working hours or child pick-up times.

There is also an assumption that a job will be available. I point to a constituent of mine who lives in a small hamlet, I will not name where it is, whose youngest child had reached eight years of age so she had to find more work—this so-called transition from paid parenting to Newstart. The problem is that there are no jobs. When she explained that she did not have a car to look further afield she was told to take public transport, but there is no public transport where she lives. Any of my regional colleagues will understand the absolute impracticality of these suggestions. Yes, there are people who need to make a greater effort to join the workforce. However, there has never been any understanding or recognition of the difficulties that rural and regional people encounter.

I know there will be those who are looking at the screen today, saying, 'Here he goes again—the member for the lost, the lonely, the disabled, the single parents!' If that is what I am accused of, here I stand accused. It is hard enough to bring up children in this country when there are two of you, when you have got a caring 'partner', as we say these days, who is going to support you in times of difficulty when things get a bit rough. And I do not know a family at all where things have not got a bit rough at times. I put to this parliament and to this nation that when things get a bit rough and you are on your own—and because I have not lived it, I can only think what it would be like—and you are on a parenting payment, struggling along on that parenting payment, do you know what is the first thing to go? Every mum in this place will know—it is the $3 to go down to the pool in the summertime; it is $3 a day and mum cannot afford $3 a day. What is the next thing to go? It is the keyboard lessons at school that they cannot afford anymore. But the worst part for the children under this legislation introduced by this opposition leader is that the children know they are different to the other kids because they know they cannot go on the excursion. They know that their clothes are different. They know that mum is struggling. They know how mum responded when they turned eight, which I addressed in a previous speech.

The previous speaker, the member for Wills, pointed out that we are in a wonderful wealthy, healthy nation. Things are a bit tight budget-wise now, yes they are—the wheel will turn. But I say to this House: we have put so much effort into addressing the plight of the disabled; we have put so much effort into addressing the need for greater educational opportunities, which changes the lives of people in this country; we have put a lot of effort into welcoming newcomers to Australia and welcoming them with open arms; yet at the same time we can introduce legislation that affects thousands of families right across Australia and all they are is single-parent families.

I want to finish with this. When I went to Moe the other day to have some discussions with the local television station, I met two local proprietors who own a furniture store and a cafe. They were sitting out the front having a cup of coffee. They said, 'Russell, what are you doing here?' I said that I had come to talk about an issue with the local press that is very important to us. They said, 'What else are you doing?' I said, 'I have actually got a mini campaign on how we treat single parents in this country.' He said, 'There is a single parent,' and there was a lovely lady in her 30s standing there with a pram. I said in my previous address that people are often single parents through no fault of their own. She said, 'That lady is a single parent. Her husband just died of a heart attack at 38 years of age three weeks ago.' So, through absolutely no fault of her own, that lady has gone from being in a stable household to being a single parent, with all the connotations that go with that and all the things she will have to struggle with because of that. Hopefully, that will be a happy story because she will—what do they call it nowadays? They don't call it 'meet another person'; they call it re-partnering, don't they? I hope that that young woman will find another person in her life and she will live happily ever after. However, she is not alone in that, as there are probably lots of other single mums who do not fit the stereotype.

I repeat: the people you attacked in this legislation were vulnerable people who are already doing it hard, and we have made it even harder for them. I point out the comparison between how we treat other people under the system and how we treat single-parent families. If anybody is going to examine their conscience, as the new member for Griffith said with regard to same-sex marriage, I think this House should look to its own conscience about the way it addresses single-parent families. If you are going to consider your conscience, then consider young women, consider young children and consider your conscience about how you treat them as compared to other people who get outlays from the federal government.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to start not with what I was originally going to talk about but by responding to the contribution by the member for McMillan. I have in this House voted twice on the removal of people from parenting payment to Newstart, for a couple when their youngest child turns six and for a single parent when their youngest child turns eight. The first time I voted on that was in 2006 when John Howard introduced in, I think, July a bill which meant that parents would be transferred from parenting payment to Newstart, for couples when their youngest child turned six and for single parents when their youngest child turned eight, for any child born after July 2006. That was the first time. I do not recall the member for McMillan speaking on it, but I could be wrong; he may have done that. That bill passed this House. As of that date, everyone in this House knew that, as of 1 July 2012, parents would start to transition from parenting payment to Newstart because of that legislation passed by the Howard government in 2006. That was several months before the Labor government moved legislation which also put the 'grandfathered' parents in the same circumstances as the parents that had been affected by the Howard government bill. By the time that legislation was introduced, the Howard government legislation had seen parents transitioning from parenting payment to Newstart for at least six months without the kind of outrage by the now government that we are seeing now.

By saying this I am not at all trying to assign blame. I get very tired in this parliament of what I call the 'he bit me first' argument: when you ask a six-year-old why they bit their younger brother and they say, 'He bit me first.' I am really not trying to do that. What I would like to say is that if there is a belief in this House that this approach is inappropriate then it has actually been brought about by both sides of parliament through two bills before this parliament supported by both sides of parliament on a number of occasions. The full story is far more complex than the one we are hearing. The day the members on the other side want to reverse that decision, the day they come to this place with the budget to reverse not just the decision that Labor made but the far more expensive decision that Howard made in 2006, I will take their outrage far more seriously, because the vast majority of parents affected and the large savings in the budget actually came from the Howard decision, not the Labor decision.

What I wanted to talk about today, and I am running out of time, is an event that is likely to happen in this House in the next month. We think it is going to happen. We have been told it is going to happen. We do not know when it is going to happen. We are reading press reports. It is what the Abbott government calls the 'repeal day'—the famous repeal day. We have heard the Minister for Small Business and various ministers on the other side talk about the repealing of 6,000 or 8,000—

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

22,000 sometimes!

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

22,000 in a year, I think, but 6,000 to 8,000 on 'the' day, the national repeal day, which we will see later this month. We have heard the Minister for Small Business say that all these regulations are tying small business in red tape and that red tape will be removed through the removal of these 6,000 or 8,000 regulations on this day.

I ran a small business and I ran a trade association for small business, so I was involved in it very closely for about 17 years of my life. Quite frankly, if only it was true that on one day in this place 8,000 pieces of regulation that impact on the operation of a small business in a negative way will be removed. That would be an extraordinary thing. Unfortunately, anybody who pays attention to this and thinks about this would know that this simply cannot be true. It is an extraordinary con on people who expect a great deal of this government and want a great deal from this government.

The figures that the government use are quite extraordinary. The claim is that, for example, Labor introduced 21,000 new and amended regulations since 2007 which have crippled business, according to the government. Let us get clear what we are talking about here. We introduced 566 pieces of legislation in the six years. What they are actually talking about is something that is quite technical, called legislative instruments, and we did: there were thousands of them. For example, there were 3,400 legislative instruments relating to airworthiness directives to enhance public safety. There were 4,200 tariff concession orders issued to the benefit of, and in response to explicit requests from, business. These are legislative instruments that attach onto the back of pieces of legislation that deal with one company here and one company there, or with one product coming into the country. They are very significant things for the businesses involved, but they are instruments that have no impact whatsoever on the vast majority of businesses or families.

There is also a whole stack of instruments that sit on the end of bills, which repeal other pieces of legislative instruments, and they last for a day. Quite frankly, you can come in here and repeal thousands of those—we repealed 4,000 in the three months from April to July 2013, for example—so they are actually easy to repeal. But to suggest that repealing things like that has any impact on red tape in small business is like saying that having us come in here and clean out our old email boxes would impact on the efficiency of small business. It is effectively repealing things which are not used, which do not matter, which have no impact, which have passed their use-by date and which are simply sitting there taking up hard drive. We understand from the rumours that departments have been told to find whatever they can to get that count up. But let us be clear about this: the vast majority of this is going to be simply the clearing out of things that are not relevant anymore, that have zero impact on small business.

Unfortunately, we are also hearing rumours that hidden in that mountain of redundant—as in no longer useful—legislative instruments, which they are calling 'regulations', will be a couple of pieces of real regulation which are actually very important. Repealing them will impact negatively on small business in a very, very serious way. They are regulations—rules, if you like—or philosophies about things that deserve serious public consultation before they are considered in this place. Frankly, it is quite deceptive of the government to try to sneak some of these things through in the middle of thousands of other pieces of regulation which are insignificant.

I am talking about two particular pieces that we are hearing about. The first is the abolition of the Australian Jobs Act. This is an incredibly important piece of legislation. It came into force only a couple of months ago and already we are hearing rumours about the Abbott government dismantling it. It was put in place to help Australian businesses develop their competitiveness and capabilities and, essentially, it requires businesses that are engaging in enormous domestic projects worth $500 million or more to consider how they would provide opportunities for local business. We introduced this act because we heard from businesses that they were being excluded from the tendering processes for the major investment projects in this country in all sorts of ways—for instance, because of the tender documents specifying Chinese specifications et cetera. They were just missing out. When we came to government there was about $55 billion in large-scale investment in the pipeline. When we lost government, there was $300 billion in the pipeline. That is $300 billion in large-scale mining projects, roads and ports and all the things that go with them, and it is incredibly important that Australian businesses, including small and medium Australian businesses, have access to that river of investment money that is going to flow through this country while we build the infrastructure that will support the mining boom.

Abolish this act and you are not just repealing red tape; you are actually repealing an opportunity to get to work for small business. This is an incredibly important piece of legislation. We have heard rumours. We have seen media reports from the seemingly strategic leaks from the other side that this will be included on 'repeal day'. We will be keeping an eye out for it as it is an extremely important piece of legislation. It is not red tape; it is a piece of legislation that is about ensuring that Australian small and medium enterprises have a foothold in what will be one of the most extraordinary building booms in this country, a building boom that has a limited life.

The benefits of having small business included in that boom are greater than the single contract, if you like. It also ensures that as a country we have the skills in this country to take on the high-tech and heavy engineering work that will be undertaken during that time. If you are looking to the future, you do not just look at what is here now; you look at what you will need in the future. If this country is going to prosper in 10, 15 and 20 years time, we cannot let the benefits of the skills base, the training and the experience that will flow through that building boom go elsewhere and not have a foothold in this country. It is incredibly short-sighted to repeal the Jobs Act. By doing so, they are not just repealing a piece of red tape, as they call it, they are actually repealing very real opportunities for small business.

The second one, which is also incredibly problematic, is the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. I know that the current government has a particular dislike, shall we say, for all things collective, and the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, because of its collective bargaining capacity, would probably be a particular target for this government. Again, we are hearing from media reports here and there that it is also in the firing line and may be hidden in the mountain of irrelevant work that we are going to do on the so-called 'national repeal day'.

This tribunal is also a Labor initiative. It deals with two aspects. It deals with road safety—the trucks on our roads, whether they are roadworthy and whether drivers are driving safely. It also deals with the viability of a small business which is the owner-driver. It is a rapidly growing sector of the economy. As full-time employed drivers are phased out, owner-drivers who own their own trucks, insure them and pay their own wages come into the sector in large numbers. It ensures that owner-operators get paid an equivalent of a fair hourly wage and a minimum amount to cover safety standards.

What happens these days is that large companies contract out the freight component, the transport component, of their business for a fixed amount. Without regulation like this that creates a base level, we are seeing rates being paid that do not allow a person to maintain and insure their truck and to drive reasonable hours. We have seen media reports on this quite a few times in the last few weeks. We are seeing drivers driving too long and we are seeing trucks on the road that are unsafe. The Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal allows truck owner-drivers to collectively bargain to set a fair rate and it ensures the payment of that fair rate. Take this away and there is no doubt that we will see an increase in the number of truck drivers driving on our roads for hours that are far too long and with standards that are unsafe—and even, in some cases, in trucks that are uninsured. Again, this is not repealing a piece of red tape: this is repealing a very serious piece of regulation which actually protects small business from an unfair power relationship with bigger business, and it protects people in the street from unsafe practices in the trucking industry. Again, that is incredibly important.

Red tape itself is a nightmare, but I would like to say that there is quite a difference between regulation and red tape. In Australia, you can get on a roller-coaster without fear that it is going to collapse. The wheels do not fall off our trucks, our balconies do not fall down, and if you buy a nut and a bolt a year apart they will manage to fit together because the threads are the same. That is regulation. Red tape is the paperwork and the process that we require people to go through to meet those regulations. That is the bit we should be focusing on, but focusing on that is hard. It actually requires you to understand the purpose of what you are trying to achieve and set about it in a meticulous way, with extensive consultation, to reduce the amount of paperwork and the process that you ask people to go through to meet it. This is an incredibly difficult task. The repeal day that pretends to do that is nothing but a con. We are going to see a lot of stuff that we repeal. It is as effective as cleaning out your inbox. Hidden in there will be some very important regulations which will reduce the safety and the viability of small business.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2013-2014, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014 and the amendment. This is about money. The ABC receives $1.4 billion from the taxpayers of Australia, so at the outset I wish to say that this speech is not about the ABC bias or malfeasance in news and current affairs recording. It is about issues that are relevant to the governance of the ABC and SBS and the efficiency review. This study is being conducted by the Department of Communications, assisted by Mr Peter Lewis, former Chief Financial Officer of Seven West Media Ltd. The terms of reference of the study state:

There is limited transparency to the Australian public, the Government and the Parliament of the breakdown of costs of delivering the ABC and SBS Charter responsibilities and whether these could be more efficiently delivered by the national broadcasters.

They go on to say:

This study will seek to clarify these costs, provide options for more efficient delivery of services … identify risks and any impediments to change and assist the national broadcasters to continue to deliver their Charter responsibilities in ways that minimise costs and maximise benefits for the Australian community.

The study will focus on the costs of inputs—that is the ‘back of house’ day-to-day operational and financial operations, structures and processes applied to delivering ABC and SBS programs, products and services.

Today, I will address some of the points mentioned above.

Information has been provided to me by a respected industry expert—Mr Chris Hetherington of Circling Shark Productions. Circling Shark is a Western Australian based production company that has produced programs including Postcards WA on the Nine Network and Can We Help?which in fact appeared on ABC TV. If you go to the website you will see many other productions. This company itself is highly regarded, and has won a Western Australian tourism award and a national tourism award. Chris has almost 30 years experience in television broadcast and video production. This is some of the expert opinion that he has conveyed to me. Firstly, he is generally concerned that our public broadcasters may be under threat, not just from efficiency reviews or any type of budget cuts but from a basic lack of eyeballs—that is, audiences are in decline. Are public broadcast institutions past their use-by date? That is a question we can ask. Are taxpayers really getting bang for their buck?

Mr Hetherington does think the efficiency review will reveal some cost-saving measures, but believes a bigger problem at play is within the heart of the management culture and relates to a lack of will inside these institutions, firstly to admit that the current situation is untenable and then to make the hard calls to ensure that our public broadcasters survive into the future. These concerns directly address the terms of reference for the efficiency review. We should question the decision-making processes of the people entrusted with the job of making both editorial and programming decisions. Are these decision makers left unaccountable and free to change their opinions subjectively in relation to awarding contracts or making programming decisions without any real concern about value for money?

Case in point: Chris Hetherington approached the ABC to pitch an idea for a six-part series that targeted a large section of the traditional ABC audience. The cost to the ABC would have been about $30,000 per episode, without the need for further federal government subsidy or a production rebate. It was presented as a cost-effective model for producing quality Australian programming, as an alternative to purchasing programs from overseas. The cost to taxpayers would have been hundreds of thousands of dollars lower than the current commissioned programs. Producers and others in the film and television industry work in a competitive environment, and of course they are used to knockbacks when they offer these sorts of initiatives. But it was in the decision-making process that any objectivity or checks and balances seemed to be missing. When Mr Hetherington's proposal was knocked back, it apparently came down to one person's opinion: 'No'. He did not think it what was the ABC's audience wanted to see. Was there any process for external review? No. Was there any avenue for appeal? No. So you would have to ask: is this decision-making process transparent and fair? And is it working properly?'

At one time, the ABC were looking to do a program on the NBN for Four Corners. An idea for a one-hour documentary and panel-interview-style program was pitched and it was knocked back. In the end, the ABC did produce a program but it failed to address any of the issues that we know plagued the former government's NBN rollout. What it ended up with was an NBN promotional video that starred, and looked like it was produced and directed by, then minister Stephen Conroy. Another program pitched to the ABC and subsequently knocked back was one on the future of public broadcasting. They said it was not topical enough.

So, let us have another look at the decision-making processes at the ABC. Say a producer submits a proposal to the ABC which makes its way to the desk of ex-pat Brit, Anita Brown, commissioning editor of factual entertainment, for the initial appraisal. I am told Anita has many years of experience producing programs for broadcasters in the UK. If Anita likes the proposal, it is then passed along the chain and lands on the desk of Phil Craig, head of factual entertainment. He is also British and he has experience in making programs for UK audiences as well as international and Australian audiences. If Phil likes the proposal it then goes straight to the top, to ex-BBC sales executive Brendan Dahill. I pause for a moment to wonder if this cabal of British expats are on 457 visas because the ABC could not find any Australians to fill the jobs. That could be an interesting further investigation for another time.

No-one is saying it is an easy job to provide a balance between the audience's needs and wants. No-one is saying it is easy to be spot on the mark each and every time, knowing just which programs will and will not be successful. Commissioning programs is not scientific, but with the use of audience assessment tools and audience data some of the subjectivity can be removed from the equation, rather guesses being made based on personal opinion.

I will make it clear. Chris Hetherington is not knocking the ABC technical staff he has worked alongside. He said they are professionals and great at what they do. He is, however, questioning if the decision-making processes are incorrect and if the way contracts are awarded is flawed and expensive. Are the ABC decision makers considering value for money at all?

Another case in point is the way the production-funding process works. The public broadcasters pay a minimum Screen Australia agreed licence fee to the producer. Screen Australia matches this amount on a dollar-for-dollar basis. State funding agencies then add in around 15 per cent of the overall budget. Following that the producer is eligible for a federal government rebate of around 10 per cent to 30 per cent of the overall budget.

Let us take the Paul Keating series of four interviews as an example. The minimum ABC licence fee for the hour is $120,000. If we times that by four, it is $480,000. Screen Australia's dollar-for-dollar contribution is $480,000, so we are now up to $960,000 for this program. If we add the 15 per cent state based contribution of $144,000, we are now up to $1.1 million. If we add the 20 per cent producer offset rebate, we end up with revenue well over $1 million. These are not exact figures, but this is an example of an independent production deal put through Screen Australia's commissioning guidelines and it shows that some production companies could make pretty large profits. There is nothing wrong with making large profits, but we are talking about value for money.

In comparison, I am told that a quality pilot episode utilising current technologies and emerging talent can be shot on a $3,000 camera and edited on a laptop computer with a $50 program. Why four separate one-hour episodes of Paul Keating's memoirs were required is anybody's guess, especially, as Chris Hetherington pointed out, David Attenborough can cover millions of years of evolution in just one hour. Either way, it is not a bad day's work for ABC stalwart Kerry O'Brien.

The closing credits for the Paul Keating series, Keating: The Interviews, declared it as being a joint production between the ABC and Binna Burra Media, which is owned by O'Brien. Mr O'Brien was paid an undisclosed sum through his production company for the shows. Additionally, the documentary series was proposed by O'Brien himself and then commissioned by the ABC. The ABC won't say how much Binna Burra Media was paid or the resources the company contributed to the production, citing commercial arrangements as being confidential. I respect commercial confidence, but this hardly allows for broad creative ideas and expression or transparency in taxpayer funding.

We know Kerry is much loved by the ABC. He was promoted from Lateline to hosting the 7.30Report and he is now the host of Four Corners. We know his pedigree. He was press secretary for Gough Whitlam and brought his great entrenched political passion to his position at the ABC, as well as his strong love for Labor. Whilst I am reluctant to quote Mark Latham, he is spot on when describing how effective Kerry O'Brien was. As a Labor insider, he exposed O'Brien's time at the ABC and criticised his on-air performance. Latham said that, even at O'Brien's peak, he was never an effective figure and, in his many hundreds of interviews with the nation's politicians, he never recorded a memorable insight, phrase or scalp. Well, do not tell that to the ABC, because he is their golden child. Interestingly, in 2010 Mark Latham said the ABC's charter should be altered to require it to broadcast programs with a wider audience interest, rather than just to the high-earners that make up the bulk of the ABC's audience. He also said that it was time to give suburban consumers the things they want to watch on TV.

Since the mid-1990s it has been reported that the ABC has shown a growing trend of commissioning its content from outside production houses using journalists or presenters that have some link to the ABC. These production houses get this work because they are part of the network of ABC luvvies. Russell Skelton is doing the fact check at the moment. He is well entrenched in the nepotistic ABC family. When you consider these cronyistic processes of the ABC, reputable production agencies such as Circling Shark barely stand a chance of getting a foot in the door, let alone some of the up-and-coming, talented, fresh and creative film and video writers, producers and directors we have in this country.

This is especially so in my state of Western Australia. If you went to see the production going on at the ABC studio in Perth, you would have to push past the cobwebs. Even though it is well set up to do this, there is no local production going on except for 7.30. Production in ABC studios is also lacking in Brisbane, Adelaide and Hobart. Not only are these states passing up a great opportunity to produce local stories but they have also lost the opportunity to be valuable training grounds for the film and television industry, particularly for those up-and-coming, young, budding producers and directors.

The ABC and SBS receive about $1.4 billion in funding from the government. Two-thirds of this is centralised in Sydney, with half of that going to pay wages for those bunkered down in the concrete building in Ultimo. Director Mark Scott's base salary is $678,940, which is far more than the Australian Prime Minister. Good old Quentin Dempster, another of the ABC's elites, is on $291,505 and does a couple of programs here and there. It would be nice if that money were put into the state based production facilities in Perth, Brisbane or Adelaide. This flies in the face of the ability to undertake productions in the outlying states, where value for money could be achieved.

Chris Hetherington has a bunch of great ideas that those doing the efficiency study should genuinely pay attention to. In fact, they might even want to interview him. He cited as an example the case of a broadcaster in Vancouver, Canada that was formed out of the lack of local programming opportunities there. They were concerned about centralised control of their national broadcaster in Toronto and thought it was not reflective of the west coast. Mr Hetherington said that the Knowledge Network was created from this concern for the dual purpose of providing children's and adult television and is funded from provincial government and donations it raises annually. This station then went on to provide opportunities for local producers to make programs about their own city and state. So, if Canada can show this type of initiative, why can't Australia and why can't the ABC in Australia?

My underlying concern in all this is for Australia's film and television industry, and seeing that the industry and our public broadcasters are viable in the future. Even though a high-quality program can be produced for $30,000 an episode, the ABC continues to pay to broadcast British re-runs. This week will see the repeats of Doc Martin, Agatha Christie's Poirot, Inside Incredible Athletes, which looks at six British athletes, Grand Designs, Dalziel and Pascoe and New Tricks. Maybe it has something to do with patriotic connections of the ex-pats running the ABC?

While some think the ABC efficiency review does not go far enough, it a good and big step in the right direction. The fact is the face of public broadcasting, and visual broadcast media generally, has changed. Other mediums—Facebook, YouTube, Foxtel et cetera—are all challengers to a traditional broadcaster like the ABC, and their audiences have changed over time as well. Should the taxpayer funded broadcaster try and compete in this commercial space or should they continue to cater to a forgotten demographic: a loyal but not so commercially viable audience? Yes, the ABC targets a certain type of audience demographic, but how much work and research goes into this back-of-house strategy by the bureaucrats tasked with deciding programming for a WA audience, for example, some 3,000 kilometres away in their concrete bunker in Ultimo, Sydney? And, ultimately, to whom is the ABC accountable? I am told it is to the board, and I am told the board is accountable to the minister.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the appropriation bills. The bills, as the House is aware, are required to pay for the spending announced by the government since the election in September last year, as well as the cuts outlined in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. In summing up the midyear update, I find it very difficult to improve on one commentator's view of the document, which is that it was a 'crass political confection'. MYEFO was really just a big, excuse-making exercise. It was a politically motivated document. It was not particularly subtle, which is a pretty common experience from this government. And I must say, just in passing, that I find it hard to hear a speech from the member opposite, the member for Canning, about fiscal responsibility when he is someone who uses the taxpayers' dime to look at rental properties.

The MYEFO document was just a warm-up act for what is to come in the budget in May this year. That budget is going to be a betrayal budget: it will be a budget full of broken promises and it will be a budget based on a big con. We know that because those opposite talked before the election about a budget emergency, and then, last year, after they were elected, they added something like $12 billion to the bottom line in the space of just a few weeks. If they were serious about this budget emergency, the Treasurer would not have spent that $12 billion, which included an almost $9 billion gift, which was not asked for, to the Reserve Bank. We also know that they went to the election promising to pay back the debt, and then when they got elected they sided with the Greens, with the member for Melbourne, and others in the parliament, to give themselves an unlimited credit card for debt.

All the talk before the election of a budget emergency was a pretty obvious political strategy to construct an excuse to rip and tear at the social safety net and to hurt middle Australia. The PM, when he was the opposition leader, spoke endlessly during the election campaign of Australia's skyrocketing debt. He either failed to understand or refused to understand that the international credit agencies rated Australia's economy and its fiscal position as AAA, with one of the lowest debt levels in the OECD. The first time that the big three ratings agencies gave Australia the AAA rating with a stable outlook was under the former Labor government. It is something that did not occur when Peter Costello was Treasurer and John Howard was Prime Minister.

In confecting his budget emergency, the current Prime Minister was trying to manipulate the community, to con the community, in order to justify harsh cuts fuelled by a cruel and uncaring ideology. As part of this strategy, the MYEFO that came out in December was nothing more than 81,000 words of excuses, or 276 pages of the longest and most obvious exercise in finger-pointing in memory. The then opposition leader promised in his campaign launch speech a 'no surprises, no excuses' government. He promised before the election to restore accountability to government, to take responsibility, but now we see him refuse to accept responsibility for the budget blow-out that was revealed in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. The Prime Minister even went so far as to describe that document as Labor's last budget statement—an extraordinary failure to understand that he is now the Prime Minister. It has not yet dawned on those opposite that they are now the government and that they must take responsibility for their own budget decisions.

By far the biggest spending in that midyear update was the $8.8 billion grant to the Reserve Bank fund. We were fortunate to be able to speak to the Governor of the Reserve Bank at a recent public committee hearing. It was very clear from that committee hearing that the one-off nature of the grant was due to the Treasurer's request, and anybody who knows anything about the sort of manipulation of the budget that those opposite seem to be pursuing right now knows that the objective of that one-off grant was to take a hit to the budget in the near term, blame Labor, and then get dividends in the ensuing years. In that committee hearing it was very clear that it was the Treasurer's idea that it be a one-off payment. The Reserve Bank was not particularly troubled by whether it was to be a one-off payment or not, but the Treasurer insisted. I think that is a fairly unfortunate relationship to have with the independent Reserve Bank.

The other key component of the MYEFO blow-out was a change in methodology used to forecast revenue and transfer payments. I know when people talk about revenue forecasts a lot of people's eyes glaze over, but in this context it is important because it goes to the political strategy being put by those opposite, which can be seen in the methodology that was used for forecasting unemployment, for example, prior to the MYEFO. The Labor government used the same methodology that was used by Howard and Costello; the incoming government, the Abbott government, changed that methodology. They also changed a lot of the forecasts from the independent pre-election forecasts that were provided a couple of months before.

Unsurprisingly, the Treasurer came up with a way to be more pessimistic about estimates of revenue and transfer payments so that he could exaggerate the deficit that Australia will face this year and in the forward estimates. It is just part of that political strategy. We know this because, of the almost $70 billion in additional accumulated deficits over the next four years, $54 billion comes from that forecasting fiddle that I just referred to and almost all of the rest comes from spending decisions he has taken since the coalition was elected nearly six months ago. So again it is very clear that the Treasurer has manipulated the numbers in the MYEFO to create a case for savage cuts now.

When the Australian people voted for those opposite to form a government, they did not vote to line the pockets of the most wealthy in our community with money snatched from the most vulnerable, but that is what they got—this reverse Robin Hood that the government seem keen to pursue. The government scrapped the low-income superannuation contribution, a yearly tax refund of $500 for the 3.6 million low-paid workers in Australia, with the retail and hospitality sectors being hit the hardest by this cut. On the same day as its formal announcement, the government gave the 16,000 wealthiest people in the country a tax break on super earnings above $100,000 a year. The people benefiting from that tax break typically have more than $2 million in their superannuation accounts.

These cuts for low-paid workers and tax breaks for the wealthy are indicative of this government's regressive approach to fiscal policy. Unfortunately, this is just a sign of things to come. There have been plenty of half-announcements, plenty of whispered leaks to newspapers, plenty of plans floated by ministers, plenty of 'wait and see', but the ones that stand out are the health minister's refusal to rule out the $6 GP tax and the social service minister's secret plans for the disability support pension—and, of course, on top of that, the PM's refusal to rule out changes to the age pension.

All of these changes, all of these thought bubbles and all of the cuts that were announced in MYEFO are a warm-up act for those to come in the Commission of Audit. We had a very interesting story today in the Financial Review which referred to the Prime Minister's Paid Parental Leave scheme, which of course gives up to $75,000 to some of the wealthiest mums in our community. That was really quite an embarrassing leak for the Prime Minister, because he should not need a leak like that or a Commission of Audit to tell him that it is wrong to take money off the most vulnerable and give it to the most wealthy mums in our community.

I am from Queensland and we have seen the Commission of Audit strategy play out before. We have seen this approach taken by Campbell Newman as well. He had a Commission of Audit, again headed up by an LNP mate—this time Peter Costello—and he used that Commission of Audit to justify brutal cuts to health, education and services. I think the recent results in the state by-election in the seat of Redcliffe, where our friend the former member for Petrie won so resoundingly, show that the community rejects this sort of Commission of Audit process.

Treasurer Hockey's Commission of Audit will be in the same mould as the Queensland one. We know this because of the way they hand-picked the Commission of Audit panel. He picked it from a very narrow part of society. We welcome business involvement, obviously, in the development of policy, but our point is that, if you do not want a predetermined outcome, you need to have the broadest possible representation on a panel as important as the Commission of Audit panel. If you were fair dinkum about getting a fair result, you would put representatives on there of the charities sector, the welfare sector and the labour movement and from right across the community. So I think that shows that the Commission of Audit outcomes are largely predetermined. They know what they are getting. It will be a re-run of the big business playbook that we have seen before. We also know that the Treasurer got this Commission of Audit report 13 days ago. It is apparently something like 900 pages. I think it is time for the interim report to be released so that Middle Australia knows what this government has in store for it.

Labor of course supports responsible budget repair, but not on the backs of Australia's most vulnerable low-income earners. Budgets are ultimately about priorities, and to sum up this government's approach it is a war on the weak. They are the type of government who will cut more than $11 million from a multicultural communities program but can find room to pay for a tax break for the wealthiest in the superannuation system. They are the type of government, as I said, who will give $75,000 to millionaire mums who take leave to have a child but will deny a pay rise to low-paid child care workers. They will look for ways to justify cuts to our most disadvantaged on the DSP but are happy to blow $20 million on marriage counselling vouchers and as much as $100 million on a politically motivated royal commission. They are happy to take assistance from hardworking families in the form of the schoolkids bonus but will return $700 million worth of tax avoidance and profit-shifting measures to multinational corporations operating in Australia. Their approach to the budget is motivated by a blind and cruel and harsh and extreme ideology.

Labor has a strong record of fiscal consolidation but fairly shared in the community. We have a history of finding savings in budgets which are carefully targeted and appropriate for economic conditions. At the same time, we have found a way to invest in important reforms for the future—in disability care, the NBN and Better Schools.

Despite what the coalition and their cheerleaders in some sections of the media will have you believe, the Labor Party left the budget in good nick before the last election. Australia's debt as a percentage of GDP at the end of the last government was the third lowest of all countries in the OECD—a podium finish. In April 2013 the IMF director for Asia said that Australia's fiscal position was of 'no concern because of the country's low level of debt'. I would prefer to take their word for it rather than believe in this confected budget emergency claimed by those opposite. The independent IMF praised the Labor government for its 'adept handling of the fallout from the GFC, prudent management and strong supervision of the financial sector'. This is entirely different to their criticism of the big spending during the Howard years.

When considering this appropriation bill and the budget more broadly, we also need to be conscious of the state of the labour market and how it will be affected by harsh austerity. We do know that austerity will affect some parts of this country more than others, and there has been some recent academic work done—some good stuff done by people at Griffith University, Charles Darwin and Newcastle—about employment vulnerability. Unfortunately for my community, some of the red alert suburbs that they identify are in Rankin, my own electorate. They issue a warning that radical austerity will make the situation for employment in my area much worse. So communities like mine have a lot of skin in the game when it comes to the likely recommendations of the government's audit commission.

We also saw the Brotherhood of St Laurence—and I commend them for their work on youth unemployment—come out this week and speak to some of the dangers, including the planned cut to Youth Connections, which is a key project. It certainly does a good job in my electorate of trying to hook young people up to the employment market so that we do not lose them forever. We need to be careful not to cut programs like that one that are doing good.

In summing up, this MYEFO is a big con. It is setting us up for some really bad decisions. It is setting us up for decisions that will hurt vulnerable people, that will hurt Middle Australia and that will do no good in a softening labour market. Unfortunately, I think the MYEFO was just the first salvo in a long war on the weak. The Labor Party will be up for any conversation about budget repair, but we will not be engaged in what is just a thinly veiled ideological exercise and political con on the part of the coalition.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As HL Mencken once noted:

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

One only has to pick up any newspaper today, listen to the TV or listen to members of the opposition to hear a seemingly endless stream of bad news from the doomsayers. You hear that our dams will never fill again, that we are running out of resources, that our pollution is out of control, that the air is bad and that the water is worse. There is a climate crisis, we are told. The seas will rise and boil, the population growth is out of control, our rainforests are being destroyed, famine and disease are rampant and things are only going to get worse—that is what we are told. These headlines are accompanied by suggestions that we must contract, cut back, make do with less. 'Degrowth', 'decarbonisation' and 'sustainability' are the buzzwords of today. This comes with the implied threat that we must submit to big government and we must have a more powerful bureaucracy that controls our lives if we are to have any chance to survive.

But the good news is that the doomsayers of today, just like doomsayers have been throughout history, are wrong. If we go back to 1789, Malthus predicted an unending misery for humankind. Back in 1968, we had the environmentalist Paul Ehrlich, with his bestseller, The Population Bomb, that led with the lines:

The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines—hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date, nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.

They have all been wrong, wrong, wrong.

It is true that here in Australia we have been through a dark period of stagnation in the last six years under the previous Labor government, with failed policies, with unprecedented reckless and wasteful expenditure and with our unemployment queue 200,000 people longer. That is enough people to fill the MCG twice. Under the six years of Labor government, we saw the real net wealth per person in Australia decline. The good news is that the decline under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd and Greens government was an aberration in the long-term trend of increased prosperity for all Australians.

I will look at the 11½ years of the previous coalition government. During that period we saw a net creation of 2.4 million new jobs. We witnessed under the previous coalition government a reduction in the number of unemployed by 260,000. That is 260,000 people who went off the unemployment line into paid employment under the previous coalition government's policies. During the previous coalition government, we saw a 20 per cent increase in real wages and a doubling—a 100 per cent increase—in the real, net wealth of the average Australian.

My concern is that many people today simply do not realize how truly fortunate they are to live in this great country at this amazing time in world history, how things have continued to improve over the last two centuries and what a bright and prosperous future Australia has ahead of us. If you look at the facts, rather than the headlines, all indicators show that the almost every quality of human life that we can measure is getting better—the complete opposite of what the doomsayers preach. Today, more than at any time in human history, we are not plagued by the war, genocide, starvation, arbitrary arrest, imprisonment without trial, slavery or disease that our forefathers had to put up with. As we look to the future, although we cannot be so naive as to think that there will not be some bumps along the way, there is every prospect that these positive trends of improvement will continue.

Let us quickly go through the evidence in the time allowed. Firstly, I will look at life expectancy. For thousands of years, the average human being living on this planet could expect to live just 25 to 30 years. Life was nasty, brutish and short. Here in Australia back in the year 1900, at birth, the average Australian male had a life expectancy of just 55 years of age. After a century of progress, someone born in Australia today has a life expectancy of close to 85 years of age. I believe that the most treasured gift we have is life, and our generation has been gifted an extra quarter of a century of life by our forefathers. So we, here, and almost everyone listening to this broadcast today, especially younger people, need to realise that we have 25 more years of life, on average, granted to us, than our forefathers had who were born at the turn of the 1900s.

Let us now look at the decrease in infant mortality. No-one can think of anything worse than a child dying at birth. A century ago, 70 out of every 1,000 children in Australia died at birth. But, thanks to progress, today the ratio is down to four per 1,000. I put these numbers in perspective at a recent presentation I made at a high school in my electorate. At that school 730 students were enrolled. If our society had not made such a reduction in the rate of infant mortality over the last century, six of the 730 at the school would not have been at the presentation; instead, they would have died at birth.

The worst disaster that has ever occurred in this world is the Spanish flu, which struck after the First World War. This pandemic killed between 10 million and 20 million people. More people were killed by Spanish flu than were killed in the entire First World War. The news today is often filled with stories about the dangers of extreme weather, but the fact is that there has been a 98 per cent decline in weather-related deaths since the 1920s. On average, our grandparents were 50 times more likely to die from extreme weather—storms, floods or heat waves—than we are today. Our wealth and our progress have protected us.

Let us talk about air pollution. Almost every indicator in my home city of Sydney shows that air quality has been improving steadily for the last 20 years. I can remember, when I first started to drive, going over some of the high points in the Sutherland Shire and looking out across Western Sydney and there being a brown pollution haze across all of Western Sydney. Today it is not there, because there have been improvements: unleaded petrol and better engine technology and design. The modern truck engine emits just one-sixteenth of the pollution that a truck engine did a decade ago.

Then there is the success we have had in eradicating killer diseases such as typhoid, cholera, typhus, plague, smallpox, polio and diphtheria—all of which afflicted our forefathers and all of which are almost unheard of today. In my home city of Sydney the water quality at every single beach has substantially improved over the last few decades, and the water continues to get cleaner despite the large increase in Sydney's population. This improvement has come about because we have been wealthy enough to afford to invest in upgrading our stormwater programs and sewage treatment plants.

Today even the least well-off Australians have access to a telephone, television, running water, air conditioning, gas, electricity and a flush toilet. A hundred years ago these were luxuries that even the wealthiest could not imagine having. Deputy Speaker Broadbent, you may be old enough, as I am, to remember the song Red-back on the Toilet Seat. Many of us can remember the days when our bathrooms were outhouses and the worry about going off into the dark and finding a red-back on the toilet seat. But today even the most modest project home has a bathroom of a luxury which would have been unimaginable just 50 years ago.

Another indication of our increasing wealth and opportunity is our ability to travel. Over a century ago it was generally only royalty and the aristocracy—and those being sent off to war—who could afford international travel. In fact, back in 1960, when we had a population of 10 million people, only 77,761 Australians made overseas trips. But last year, with a population a little bit more than doubled to 23 million, the number had increased to the extent that 8.7 million Australians made overseas trips. On a per capita basis, today we are travelling overseas 50 times more than we did back in the 1960s.

Perhaps the best example of our increasing wealth is the iPhone which almost everyone today has in their pocket. When I was a student the only person with a mobile phone was Maxwell Smart, Agent 86, who had his shoe-phone. The idea that there would be a mobile phone was so far-fetched that it was depicted in a comic series. When I first started to work, mobile phones cost the equivalent of $10,000 and weighed the same as two house bricks; you would have needed a large suitcase to carry one. But look at what is in everyone's pocket today. It is not just a mobile phone; it is a high-quality camera which also shoots videos, and it can be used to listen to music and to send messages and as a street directory, a library, a GPS and more. When I was a student each of these technologies would have cost separately over $1 million. Today, for less than $100, I can have all of them in my pocket.

There is more good news: the dire predictions of global warming in the early IPCC reports are simply not coming true. Despite all the claims that the science is settled and that the time for debate is over and the fact that anyone who even dared to question the accuracy of the IPCC's prophecies was labelled a 'denier', for the last 17 years there has been no global warming. We hear the pessimists talking about the limits to growth, but the fact is that we are not running out of resources. Every time someone has predicted we are running out of a resource they have been proven wrong. The reason is that the single greatest resource we have is the creativity of mankind—and that is a resource which has no limits. The doomsayers forget that our history has shown that the biggest counter to any perceived scarcity is not to try to slice the pie into smaller pieces, as those in the opposition do, but to use our human ingenuity to innovate, experiment and take risks to figure out how to make more pies.

While there are so many positives, there are some negative trends. We have seen the breakdown of families and an increase of suicide rates. Today every Australian should be rightfully optimistic about the bright future that we have, though there are some risks. I suggest the main risk to our prosperous future is the failure to understand the drivers of our prosperity over the last two centuries. Those drivers have been our democratic institutions which have provided the economic and political freedoms. It has been our Christian heritage. It has been the constant and real reduction in costs of energy. It has been the increase in international trade. It has been the increase of home ownership. It has been the development of an entrepreneurial culture with incentive for individuals to innovate, experiment and take risks. Combining those things has tapped the creativity of our nation and they have delivered an upward spiral of prosperity. One thing we do know is that the greatest tragedy of the past has been too much government, not too little. We need to learn that central planning fails and concentration of political or economic power has always been inherently bad.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3), Appropriation Bill (No. 4) and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill. I am not quite sure that all of the previous debate focused on that legislation. I do, however, note one contribution of the member for Hughes that I wholeheartedly agree with. He may be disappointed to hear this. While his broader contribution is on themes that I find uncomfortable personally and in terms of their relationship to the reality that I see, particularly in relation to climate change, I share his confidence in the creativity of our people, men and women, being our greatest asset. However, it is disappointing to me that that concern for productivity is not something which is demonstrated in the priorities of the government as demonstrated in the legislation before the House. I should also say that I rise in support of the amendment moved by the member for Fraser, the shadow Assistant Treasurer, which I believe sets these bills in their proper context.

These three bills reflect additional appropriations for 2013-14, containing details of extra expenditure as a result of government decisions that were in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. In total, the government is seeking parliamentary approval for approximately $14.8 billion. Notably, the bills propose additional appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the annual services of the government, and for the parliamentary departments. But hidden within these bills are some particularly concerning cuts to services and organisations which will impact in Scullin, as they will elsewhere in Australia. These cuts, and more particularly their consequences, will be the principal focus of my contribution to this debate.

I note that there will be an $11.5 million cut to the vital Building Multicultural Communities Program. This is, in short, a demonstration of how we have a government that knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing. These cuts will damage and indeed diminish communities across Australia. What this means directly for the communities of Scullin is a cut to the Thomastown Little Athletics Club but also a very significant cut to the City of Whittlesea in respect of a $150,000 provision to upgrade the kitchen at Epping Memorial Hall. Epping Memorial Hall is the council's most popular venue and hosts a wide array of different groups, including senior citizens, schools and other community groups. I regularly attend meetings and events there and know it to be a focus for multicultural activities in Melbourne's north. It is a real community hub. I know that groups like the Chaldean Ankawa Social Club, the Community of Cypriots in the Northern Suburbs Senior Citizens Club, the Epping Pensioners Association, the Italian Pensioners Association at Mill Park, the Italian Speaking Senior Citizens Club, the Macedonian Orthodox Community Elderly Citizens Group, the Vedanta Society of Australia and the Whittlesea U3A are reliant on this wonderful facility to bring together their communities and to share community activities. The upgrade to the kitchens would have allowed the hall to host multiple events, something having only one kitchen precludes. The situation as it currently stands means that, as we head into winter, the council is forced to continue renting a portable kitchen outside the hall for $12,000 a month, as well as to find a further $150,000 from somewhere else within the council's already stretched budget.

The letter that informed the community organisations of this news stated that 'the Government has decided to reduce the scope of the Building Multicultural Communities Program'. By this, the government meant it was cutting the program completely—reducing the scope to zero, in other words. This was spending that was approved and accounted for in the last budget. Before the election, the coalition made no mention of these cuts. So much for a 'no surprises, no excuses' government; these cuts were a surprise for these organisations and there can be no excuse for them. And $150,000 is only two paid parental leave payments to millionaires. Make no mistake: these cuts will hurt many organisations and diminish community. Affected groups have already raised their concerns with me and no doubt will continue to do so. But perhaps that is the point. As we have seen before over the last six months, this government does not believe in society and goes out of its way to undermine those that do.

This important program was designed to assist diverse groups establish a sense of community in Australia, to give them more of a stake in our society. So it was unsurprising, although disappointing, to find that Senator Bernardi has been critical of this program, particularly as Senator Bernardi has previously described multiculturalism as a 'significant problem' that 'undermines the cultural values and cohesiveness that brings a nation together'. Needless to say, I disagree with this assertion. But if Senator Bernardi is concerned to bring our nation together, the irony of this contribution is that cuts like these hurt communities and make it harder for these groups to reach out and create a sense of inclusiveness at the grassroots level and build a stronger community and indeed a stronger nation.

I note also that the cuts provide for a $4.6 million cut to the legal policy reform and advocacy funding. This sum, $4.6 million, specifically relates to the 2013-14 year, but the overall cut is $43.1 million to legal policy reform and advocacy funding. The cuts include a $6.5 million cut to legal aid commissions, $19.6 million from the Community Legal Services Program, $13.3 million from the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services and three and two-thirds million dollars from Family Violence Prevention Legal Services, the last being an issue of grave concern to many aspects of the community I represent.

Earlier this week in estimates, Senator Brandis tried to deny that these cuts would have any impact on front-line services, but this is hard to believe. A more plausible motivator is that the Attorney-General has complained about these services conducting policy or advocacy work. This accords with the government's obsession with secrecy and its regrettably thin skin when it comes to the expression of views that may be contrary to its own.

When problems confronting legal services are systemic, what is wrong with them doing policy and advocacy work to bring this government—indeed, any government—to account and its work to the public's attention? The government may say that it is not the job of these services, but surely these services are the organisations best placed to offer insight in these areas, particularly when we think about service delivery in complicated and pressing social issues like family violence support.

Before the election, in the Scullin electorate, we were fortunate enough to have the former Attorney-General, the member for Isaacs, announcing funding increases for the Whittlesea Community Legal Service. I take this opportunity to ask that the government confirm that this centre will not be subjected to the cuts announced in MYEFO.

On this point about the legal cuts, I note that the Law Council of Australia has already raised its concerns, stating:

… the Law Council is concerned some of the programs may have been inappropriately identified as 'law reform and advocacy' programs and that the proposed cuts will have a significant impact on the capacity of already chronically under-funded legal assistance bodies to provide legal services to disadvantaged Australians …

It said:

… it is clear that those organisations require urgent additional funding in order to meet increasing demand for legal assistance services.

And it said:

These cuts will ultimately create a net burden for the economy and work counter to the Government's objectives.

This is a warning that should have been heeded and should be heeded now.

In respect of higher education, these bills would cut just over $2 million from the Commonwealth Grant Scheme and the Higher Education Loan Program. Whilst I am relieved that these programs still survive in some form from the coalition, these reductions in funding will likely reduce opportunities for those seeking a tertiary education. This is of particular concern to my electorate, which hosts the Bundoora campus of RMIT University and which is adjacent to the neighbouring La Trobe University campus, which is also located in Bundoora but in the electorate of Batman.

The Commonwealth Grant Scheme provides funding to eligible higher education providers for students enrolling in bachelor degrees and other higher education courses of study designated by the minister. For designated courses of study, the Australian government provides funding to public universities for an agreed number of Commonwealth supported places in a given year. La Trobe University had 1,256 Commonwealth supported places for the 2013 grant year, and RMIT University had 2,398 such places. This government now needs to come clean about how its cuts will affect RMIT and La Trobe universities, as well as other universities, their students—including prospective students—and university staff.

Yesterday, we heard how little the Minister for Health had to say regarding preventative health, so perhaps it is unsurprising that this government is also cutting $13.2 million from the health budget, including $1 million from the Chronic Disease Prevention and Service Improvement Fund, $6 million from the public health program, $5.2 million from the National Rural and Remote Health Infrastructure Program and $1 million from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health program. I am deeply concerned about the impact of these cuts to these types of programs in Scullin and across the country.

I note, on the last specific matter I wish to touch upon, that these bills include some cuts to education programs. I take this opportunity to remind the House that before the election there was, famously, a unity ticket between the coalition and Labor on education funding, in relation to schools funding in particular. But this is of course, unfortunately, a government that says one thing and does another. Yesterday in Senate estimates, it was confirmed that the coalition will do nothing to ensure that states maintain and grow their funding, including states like Victoria that have signed up to the Labor reforms. What a difference this will make to schools in Scullin and to the educational prospects and indeed the life prospects of so many students!

In relation to the $4.8 million cuts from education in 2013-14, these bills cut $1 million from the Child Care Services Support Program, which provides financial assistance to childcare service providers to improve access to child care for children, families and communities. It complements the help given to eligible families through the childcare benefit and the rebate. There are also cuts, I note, of $1.4 million to general childcare outcomes and $338,000 to the schools support program, once again showing unfortunate priorities.

I now turn from examining some particular impacts of this legislation to some wider considerations that have been effectively touched upon already by previous speakers on this side of the House, and also briefly to the amendment moved by the member for Fraser. Let us consider the context within which we are debating these bills. The papers this week are full of speculation about the forthcoming budget. The budget will be informed by the report of the Commission of Audit, a 900-page document that we in this place, legislators, need to see. We need to debate it. But, while it appears that the Australian Financial Review gets a sneak peak at the report or parts of it, in this place we continue to remain in the dark.

The people of Australia were promised no surprises and no excuses, as well as no cuts to education and health, amongst many other things, of course. These bills once again nail the lie about no cuts. Important programs are axed in both education and health. But, sadly, this is not even the half of it. The Treasurer now says, 'All options are on the table,' but that is his table, of course. The rest of us—except, it seems, some at the Australian Financial Revieware still waiting on the surprises as we continue to be softened up with excuses, including the substantial provisions in these bills.

These bills show us that the government could make time to make a reportedly unsolicited donation to the Reserve Bank in the form of an $8.8 billion appropriation to the bank—an appropriation that I note the Treasurer is yet to provide justification for—but not to make necessary investments in the people of Australia and their productive capacities. And, if debt is the problem, more debt is not the answer. That is something we were told about before the election, but it seems that, like many other lessons of opposition, it has not made the transition into government.

It is time now for this government to live up to the promises it made to the people of Australia before the election, to stop being an opposition in exile and to take responsibility for how it governs. The Australian people deserve better.

In drawing attention to some of the consequences of these bills for the communities that I represent in this place, I am mindful of the broader considerations that are at stake. These cuts, these broken promises, are the tip of a huge iceberg. It is telling and, indeed, frightening that this government continues to hide behind excuses and to rely on surprises in place of an open and informed debate about its plans. Perhaps this betrays a lack of confidence.

I am deeply concerned that this government is paving the way to austerity by deliberately blowing out the budget and by the hidden commission of cuts. There is a different approach that is open to them, even now. Let us have a transparent debate about our future so that we can properly consider how to build the more productive economy that members on both sides are talking about. With that more productive economy I would hope also for a more equal and more sustainable society. Let us now see the end of this opposition in exile. Let us see some responsibility taken by the adults opposite. Let us see responsibility taken for governing now.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Flying into Brisbane international airport you cannot help but notice Moreton Bay and the archipelago of islands flanked by the beautiful North Stradbroke Island: a 60-kilometre-long sand island with extraordinary ecology, freshwater lakes, pandanus-framed beaches and, of course, tourism. Being an island, it needs a hub—and that is Toondah Harbour, where around 7,000 maritime services leave each year to reach North Stradbroke Island. This makes it the second-busiest port in this nation, carrying over half a million visitors and 200,000 vehicles. The Toondah Harbour area is a Newman government Priority Development Area—a very important initiative that allows us to envision what this incredible gem could look like with a common-sense approach to development and to allowing additional features over and above the current area for vehicle departures. This area is potentially a place for residential, tourism, maritime and wharf development, for light retail and other activities.

The idea of a PDA is to leave options open to people and to entities with great ideas. The PDA process is an idea of the Newman government that I support entirely. But, to do it right, you often get only one shot. To do it right, you need all three levels of government working together, and I am confident that, with the work of Redland City Council and the Queensland state government, and even with the overlying federal legislation through the EPBCA, we can get to that place.

Major strategic assets on our coastline are truly rare things. In my area of Redlands, with a coastline of over 150 kilometres, mostly mangrove and beach, there is barely one or two kilometres of actual development. Most of our 'emerald fringe', as we like to refer to it, has been preserved. In the case of Toondah Harbour we are talking about not 200 kilometres but about 200 metres of currently untouched foreshore that is part of the PDA process.

It is important that—as the three levels of government work together to get it right—we look to the future. It is important that whatever does happen there is economically conceived and sustainable and can actually be built. Otherwise there is no point in starting. Finally, we need to remember that, no matter how attractive a beautiful natural asset is, just because we live next to it gives us no right to refuse others the right to visit and enjoy it. When we are looking at what we can do on our foreshore, we need to ask these questions on behalf of those who will follow us decades later: how do we best capture the utility of this place? How do we best optimise its use? How do we make it available to more than just the people who live around it and love it? Sure, by being near it and close to it, as my constituents are, we have a vested interest in doing it right. To that end, I lived on Shore Street North. My immediate neighbour is the Toondah area and, in fact, GJ Walter Park.

There are three great concerns that my constituents have about this development, and that is what I would like to address today. If we are doing anything on Queensland's beautiful coastline, and certainly on the delicate Moreton Bay ecology—that is already a Ramsar site of national significance—we need to be mindful about what we do. We need to be mindful about dredging, we need to be mindful about what we do with changing the foreshore coastline, and we need to be mindful about the built infrastructure that we create and that necessarily affects people who live behind what we are doing. On those three fronts I would like to elaborate a little further.

This part of Moreton Bay is a Ramsar site and subject to EPBCA review. It is so because of migratory seabirds, green turtles, loggerhead turtles and, of course, seagrass that dugongs feed on. This is an extraordinary place just 30 kilometres from one of the world's most exciting and fast-growing cities, Brisbane. It is an amazing place because you can live on an island and commute to work in a major city—such a rare thing worldwide. There are not one, not two but six or seven of these populated islands where amazing people have built up incredible communities surrounded by an emerald fringe. Each island has its own particular characteristics and personalities, and each island has its own dreams for the future. But all of them rely on those vehicle and passenger movement services. There is Wynnum Creek in the south and Toondah Harbour in the north.

Building heights will always be a sensitive issue along Australia's coastline, and I am confident that through the PDA process there will be an absolute insistence that any proposal for built infrastructure be mindful of views, heights and the open spaces around them. If we are going to be dredging, we have to be mindful about what we do with the spoil, where it comes from, whether it affects migratory seabird areas and, of course, the long-term impacts on hydrology; whether it affects coasts north and south and whether it leads to erosion or to storm surges or other threats that we can have during Queensland's storm season.

Finally, to open space: I do not blame any local for saying, 'I don't mind what plans you have for development, but don't take away the very precious access that my family and friends have to Moreton Bay.' Believe me, so much of it is mangrove fringe that it is actually very hard to take your dogs and your kids down to much of Moreton Bay in my area and to be able to enjoy the water. Whoever comes up with a concept for the development of the Toondah Harbour PDA, we will by necessity have to consider those demands of locals. We cannot afford to have a development that cuts off that access to the water; we cannot afford to have a development that makes it impossible for dog owners to take their pets to the beach. These are things that are now absolutely woven into the lifestyles of those of us who live along the bay.

I do want to respond by quoting into Hansard some of the important comments made by Mark Robinson MP. In a recent letter to the editor he has pointed out to Redlanders in particular how seriously he takes building heights, open space and any proposal to dredge in this area:

With respect to building heights, I can reassure the community that proposed development applications will have to demonstrate how building structures will protect views …

I make this comment because in parts of the Sunshine Coast building height limits have simply led to long horizontal proliferations of high-rise buildings just under the maximum height that absolutely obliterate views for all of the residents behind. Sometimes, having a slightly higher high-rise building limit allows what we refer to as view corridors that improve the amenity for people who live in the area. Robinson goes on to emphasise the need for the provision of open space and good urban design outcomes, and says:

While maps in the PDA documents have indicated building heights of up to 15 levels could be considered in the Toondah Harbour proposed scheme, any buildings considered will need to meet this strict criteria.

Robinson also points out, regarding open space:

A continuous public space link along the Toondah Harbour foreshore is proposed to provide new recreational opportunities for the community.

While some current open space at Toondah Harbour may need to be partly used for development, the proposed development scheme will provide better access to the foreshore, land reclamation and the possible relocation of an existing car park currently taking up prime land close to the foreshore.

Robinson's point is a simple one: if we are going to improve this Toondah Harbour area, there are many opportunities not just for focusing purely on preservation but for increasing and optimising the use of this area. Having large concrete car parks along our foreshore is not ideal. Reopening these areas to the public and liberating them should be our goal. You only need to visit other major regional cities up the Queensland coastline like Mackay, Townsville and Cairns to know that that is possible.

The last thing we want in our community is to have empty foreshore areas that have virtually no utility because nothing can be built, nothing can be designed and nothing can be improved. That is not my vision as a local member from my area. My job is not to make sure that nothing changes; my job is to make sure that the world knows that my area is one of the world's greatest places to live, to visit, to spend money, to stay and to consider becoming a local. I know it is a very special place and I know that our community is smart enough to identify what makes it special, to identify what caused us to move there in the first place and to preserve it and show it off; to be proud of it and make it more easily accessible. I know every blade of grass at GJ Walter Park. My daughter Sophie's first birthday party was held in the rotunda. Living across the road from it, I know exactly how many people use the park at every hour of the day, 24 hours a day. It is still one of the best kept secrets in Redlands, and it is virtually unknown to people who are not from Redlands. I know we can do better than that.

What we do not need is a small minority utterly insistent that nothing can change. Every person in my community should have a voice. They have a right to a say. No individual in my community has a right to say to others that they cannot have what they want. We want equal voices, with everyone having a say. If I make one commitment today it is that I will go broadly to my community and talk to them about how they would like to see Toondah Harbour a decade and two decades from now. We will not have a repeat of Labor consultation processes where 100 people turn up and tell us what the community is thinking. I am afraid 100 people, as much as I respect their points of view as individuals, do not cut it as community consultation. Not everyone wants to turn up at a rally and tell you exactly what they want, and in many cases we need to be much more imaginative about how we ask our community what they want. Social media will give us this opportunity, phone polling will give us this opportunity, telephone town halls will open up new possibilities and of course the traditional written surveys are also important. In many cases there is only a 10 per cent return on those surveys, and for me the challenge is to do better: to motivate people to complete surveys and tell me what they think.

The PDA process in Cleveland is an example of how we can do far better. I am confident that both the Queensland state government and Redlands City Council can do that. I am confident that, despite submissions closing on 24 February this year, there will be ample opportunities once submissions are received to examine them, to scrutinise them, to critique them, to debate them and to inspire our friends and neighbours to get involved and improve those missions where we can. But—let us have considered, informed debate once those submissions are received. It is almost impossible to prejudge submissions that have not yet come to hand. Let us move away from the old ways of getting 100 people around a piece of paper and deciding what the community will get. Let us move away from the old ways where we used bureaucrats to make it impossible to develop areas simply because of the layers and layers of legislative and regulatory impediment. Now is the time that ordinary people should get together and formulate a clear vision of what they love and what they want to see their children enjoying.

I make it very clear that my job in an outer metropolitan community is, above all things, to protect the local ecology while making jobs available to my local families. If my people trust that levels of government can achieve those two goals by working together, then I ask them to join me in that communication and that process in a constructive way. To people on both sides of the debate, I say that if you come to the debate wanting the place levelled and covered in high-rise buildings, or if you come to the debate wanting absolutely not a blade of grass touched, then be prepared to conciliate. Be prepared to open your mind to the possibilities; be prepared to look around the world and see how other places have done it right and let us make sure that Cleveland is added to that list in the years to come.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to speak today on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2013-2014 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014 and, of course, on the amendment that Labor has moved. The three bills reflect additional budget appropriation for the 2013-14 financial year and they contain details of extra spending as a result of government decisions that were made in the 2013-14 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. In total, the government is seeking parliamentary approval for about $14.8 billion of additional expenditure in 2013-14.

While we will not block the passage of these bills, we do want to note the gross hypocrisy and dishonesty when it comes to spending—and previous speakers have highlighted what I am talking about. Before the election, the Treasurer was saying, 'If debt is the problem, more debt is not the answer.' We see in these bills that it is clear that the Treasurer thinks that more debt is the answer, and his deal with the Greens to have 'debt unlimited' is reflected in what is happening with these appropriation bills.

The government has been trying to justify much of its agenda since coming to government by saying that the previous government left the country with a budget emergency. But what are the facts of the budget numbers that were left by Labor to this government? The numbers were verified independently by the departments of Treasury and Finance prior to the election, in the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook, PEFO. Labor had the budget going back into surplus in 2016-17. This government has turned around a projected $4.2 billion surplus in that year to a deficit of $17.7 billion. I again remind members that the Treasurer had said, 'If debt is the problem, more debt is not the answer.' As I said, these appropriation bills seek approval for around $14.8 billion in extra spending this year, and the largest contributor to that extra spending is the appropriation that the government is seeking of $8.8 billion for the Reserve Bank. That is a contribution that the Treasurer has consistently refused to provide an adequate justification for.

These bills not only detail spending proposals but also reveal a number of cuts. We should not forget that the Prime Minister said on the eve of the election 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. We have seen the lie of this in the weeks and months since the election. With these appropriation bills we see it in black and white, with millions of dollars of cuts in the health portfolio and millions of dollars of cuts in the education portfolio—and we have certainly heard public discussion of further cuts, including cuts to the ABC and cuts to the pension to pay for the rolled-gold paid parental leave scheme that the Prime Minister has promised.

The health and education cuts and others detailed in these bills happen this financial year. From the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook we know that, across the forward estimates, Australia's public hospitals will be $400 million worse off. At the same time, the government have announced that they are ending Labor's trades training centres, cutting hundreds of millions of dollars from education.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Shame!

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed. The minister sitting at the table, the Assistant Minister for Education, has been out there saying that there is not enough opportunity to try a trade in school at the same time as presiding over—

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Glad you are listening.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am listening but I am not agreeing. If you think that it is important to give students an opportunity to learn a trade at school, why are you cutting a billion dollars from trades training centres? No answer from the minister.

Other speakers have detailed and will continue to detail the cuts to health, education and other services, but I want to talk about the cuts this government is making within the foreign affairs and international development portfolio. In January this year, the foreign minister confirmed that no region in the world would escape the government's $4.5 billion cut to the foreign aid budget. The $4.5 billion cut was announced only days before the election, but it took the government until the new year to detail how those cuts would hit. The foreign minister's January announcement was of the first $650 million in cuts for the 2013-14 financial year—the announcement more than halfway through the financial year in which the $650 million cuts would hit. These cuts will impact on some of the poorest people in the world.

I do not think there is any Australian who would say that the humanitarian need in Africa is not great and that we should not help. But the Abbott government has already cut more than $90 million from the poorest countries in Africa. The government tried to justify these cuts by saying that they were going to reorient Australia's aid spend towards the Asia-Pacific. I would agree that our region should be our greatest priority. Yet over this same period, this financial year, there will be a $250 million cut to our region—Indonesia cut by $59.1 million; PNG cut by $5.3 million; Vanuatu cut by $6.2 million; the Solomon Islands cut by $14.2 million; and Fiji cut by $2.8 million. The member at the table with me, the member for Kingsford Smith was with me on a trip through the Pacific with the foreign minister as she assured the Prime Minister of Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands and Nauru that there were no cuts to their foreign aid budget coming—yet these figures show that that is absolutely not the case.

It is important to remember that these cuts are retrospective. They come in the middle of a financial year, causing enormous difficulty for aid organisations that had worked so constructively with the previous government and that wish to work so constructively with this government. I will give a couple of examples. Julia Newton-Howes, chief executive of that marvellous organisation, Care Australia, said her organisation had lost half a million dollars from their $20 million budget this year. She said:

This is for aid we had already programmed this financial year. We are now going to have to scramble to work out where we can cut.

Oxfam is another magnificent organisation that assists some of the neediest people in the world. Their chief executive Helen Szoke says it will be forced to scale back a number of programs as a result of the cuts. She said:

We, like many other agencies, will have to tell partners and people on the ground that we'll have to scale back programs.

Real needs that were going to be met this year will now not be met. Before the election, then shadow Treasurer, Joe Hockey, and shadow finance spokesman, Andrew Robb, said:

The Coalition will reprioritise foreign aid allocations towards non-government organisations that deliver on-the-ground support for those most in need.

That will also mean putting more money into NGOs who are on the ground and who can deliver aid more efficiently.

Again, I would agree with that sentiment. It is very important that we support our proven and tested NGOs with partners and staff on the ground, experienced people, delivering high-quality aid. Yet, despite these promises, non-government organisations which deliver that on-the-ground support, such as CARE and Oxfam, had their funding cut midyear. The Red Cross will lose $8.5 million, UNICEF's funding will be cut by $4.2 million and the World Health Organization will lose around $3.4 million. I cannot speak highly enough of these organisations. I admire the work they do. I have been a long-time donor to many of these organisations because I respect them. I know that when you give a dollar to these organisations it gets to people in need. Yet these organisations are facing the cruellest of cuts this financial year.

Late last year, the government failed to deliver the $375 million contribution expected of Australia to replenish the Global Fund. The Global Fund does magnificent work to reduce the spread of HIV, tuberculosis and malaria around the world. It does successful work. We have seen that the Abbott government funding has fallen $175 million short on what was expected to be Australia's contribution. Instead of the expected $125 million a year, the government will give only about half of that.

We are a generous country, and we do what we can to offer a helping hand to those most in need. We do it not only because of our ethical and moral values but also because it is in Australia's interest to live in a peaceful and prosperous world. When we can contribute to that aim, we should contribute to that aim. Under the former Labor government, Australia's aid budget increased every year, by nearly $3 billion in total. And, to those opposite who would say that this is a frivolous indulgence, we looked at every dollar of aid spending to make sure that it was well targeted. We undertook an Independent Review of Aid Effectiveness to ensure that our international development policy was actually working to help people overcome poverty. We were determined to ensure our aid program was not just better resourced but of a higher quality too and that more was spent on front-line services like health and education. That is why we made enhancing transparency and accountability key planks to ensure effectiveness, and it is also why we were determined to strengthen Australian government partnerships with accountable and proven NGOs.

The cuts to the aid program were followed by revelations in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's portfolio additional estimates statement, released a couple of weeks ago. In that statement, the government's lack of commitment to poverty alleviation was revealed. No longer would Australian aid spending carry with it an obligation to assist developing countries reduce poverty. After the former government's Independent Review of Aid Effectiveness, poverty reduction was entrenched as a primary goal of Australia's aid program. This is now gone, and the change of direction is rapidly taking place under this government. Why is poverty reduction important? How can it be called an aid budget or an overseas development assistance budget if we do not have poverty reduction as one of the aims of this budget?

The poor start that the government has made in overseeing Australia's international development policy has disappointingly, unfortunately, been mirrored by its clumsy approach to some of our most critical bilateral relationships. Over the last few months I think many Australians have been looking on and scratching their heads as they have seen the decline in our relationship with Indonesia and the decline in our relationship with China. These countries are important to us in our region, and it pains me to say it but our government is letting us down. Of course issues occasionally blow up with countries—even with our very good friends and even with our best friends—but how we handle those issues as they come up is critical.

Our relationship with Indonesia is vital, and that is why we worked with Indonesia so closely. It is why, under Labor, we secured a comprehensive strategic partnership with Indonesia, including annual face-to-face meetings of leaders and foreign, defence and trade ministers to foster better dialogue and strategic consultation between our two nations. Just recently, the Indonesian Foreign Minister said that just five months ago the relationship between our two countries had been 'very close and very positive'. He also said that the relationship was 'maybe the closest' it had ever been. In that very short time, we have seen a very substantial decline in that relationship. We heard today that our Minister for Foreign Affairs got an incredibly frosty reception when she went to China. It is important that we look after our old friendships, but our new friendships and our friendships in the region will be critical to our success in the future, to our prosperity and to our security. The government lets us down when it does not tend to these relationships.

Under Labor, our bilateral relationship with China also matured into a stronger and more diverse partnership. In the Australia in the Asian century white paper, the then government committed to elevating our relations with China through regular high-level meetings between leaders and senior ministers. We achieved that goal at the historic meeting of leaders in Beijing in April 2013, when then Prime Minister Gillard and the Chinese Premier announced the Australia-China strategic partnership. We have, as I said, good and close relationships with our old friends, but it is irresponsible and short-sighted for Australia to turn its back on our newer friends, because those newer friends will be critical to our national wellbeing in the future. We are capable of good relations with both, and under Labor we had good relations with both.

As I said earlier, we will pass these bills, but we need to remember that, at the heart of them, what we see in black and white is a catalogue of the broken promises of this government—the promises not to cut. We see the cuts here in black and white. We see a broken promise too in the fact that, while Joe Hockey promised to spend sensibly, what we see here is the beginning of debt unlimited.

Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government has a clear-cut plan to boost the productive capacity of the economy, to go for growth. It is a tripartite plan, the first element of which is that we are a government that intends to live within its means. That entails cutting the waste as we maintain an unblinking focus on delivering a sustainable budget.

With the previous Labor government at the levers, this nation's enviable abundance became a political plaything in the form of pink batts, school halls, free cash, and debt, debt and more debt. Consequently, Labor's legacy is 200,000 more unemployed, gross debt projected to rise to $667 billion—that is, $29,000 for every Australian—and $123 billion in cumulative deficits.

The coalition government shares the concerns of our fellow Australians in regard to this careless, flagrant and all-too-rapid decline. We recognise the imperative of taking stock. We will action the people's mandate to us to clean up Labor's mess. And we will return Australia to its rightful realm of prosperity. While our goal is eminently achievable, not one member of this government is unperceiving of the hard work ahead. Nor have we been anything less than frank with the Australian people on the realities of budget repair. Greater prosperity will ultimately result in a greater ability to pay for government services. But to get there, just like the families and businesses in our electorates, governments have to live within their means.

As the Prime Minister articulated this week, you cannot spend money until you have earned it or created the means to pay it back. This year's budget will direct our course. What we will do across government is be utterly mindful in our spending determinations. Less productive spending will be ruled out and more productive spending counted in. That is why, on one side of the ledger, we will abolish the carbon and mining taxes—because the premise that you can tax a nation into prosperity is devoid of logic. In the plus column, we will build the infrastructure of the 21st century and, where the market is not best placed to do so, consider other economic investment in programs that meet our stringent cost-benefit analyses.

The public sector will be trimmed and new bureaucracies scrapped because, when it comes to government, we believe that less is more. We believe that getting government out of the way allows the real wealth creators—thriving businesses, employing expanding workforces—to free their arms.

This government has a responsibility to ensure that each Australian's tax dollar sows as much value as possible. That is why all new spending in the coalition government's first budget will be fully funded, invariably from savings, and targeted towards growing the economy through the productive engagement of all working Australians. This thrust is the very basis of rebuilding our economy, so that within three years Australia will be on track for a sustainable surplus. Hopefully, well inside 10 years Australia will once again be a country of sustainable surpluses in the order of one per cent of GDP.

The second pillar of our plan is rooted in the understanding that strong communities require a strong economy to support and sustain them; and a firing economy is one with creative, energised and profitable private businesses. We know that entrepreneurial interests, not governments, are the hothouses of new jobs. So we have to make sure we do everything we can to unencumber businesses, to give them the clear air to thrive, to prosper and to employ more people.

We are a government that is unabashedly going for growth in the private sector. That is why we are unshackling it from the strangling effects of the carbon tax. After the previous Labor government's 40 new or increased taxes and more than 21,000 new regulations, we have begun our program to slash unwarranted and excessive regulation by at least $1 billion a year. In my electorate, I am working with local businesses to garner our share of these red-tape reductions.

Already, this government, in its foundational days, has limited most of the almost 100 announced but not enacted Labor government's tax changes, meaning lower taxes, less paperwork and more certainty. In turn, lower taxes and less red tape add up to greater productivity, which spells higher economic growth, more jobs and, ultimately, more prosperity. But there is something even more subtle at play here. In business, where confidence is king, nothing could be more crucial than fostering an environment that is positive and not defeatist, where eyes are raised and shoulders are not weighed down, in an atmosphere which, freed of obstacles and shadows, rekindles entrepreneurial spirit and its by-products of investment and employment.

The third step in our economic plan is cast in the iron-clad knowledge that global trade produces infinite possibilities with respect to raising the prosperity of nations. That is why this Australian government wishes to sign well-negotiated free trade agreements, particularly with our neighbours in the region. An emergent Asian middle class of more than a billion people will want to buy our goods and services and they will want to holiday here. It is important that we are opening ourselves to those markets and cultivating access for our exporters.

When the Australia-Korea Free Trade Agreement comes into force, 84 per cent of Australia's exports by value to Korea will enter duty free, rising to 99.8 per cent on full implementation. The wide-ranging wins for Australian industry, including beef and dairy producers, will be worth more than $5 billion in additional national income between 2015 and 2030 and, beyond those first 15 years of operation, will boost the economy to the tune of $653 million a year.

So there it is— the interlocking economic framework of our future laid out. A government that lives within its means, reaches for growth in the private sector and hitches its wagon to the locomotive of global trade. Yet, for all the macro-surgery required to close the wounds of Labor's fiscal failings, the coalition government has no intention of shirking its responsibilities at the local level. Indeed, at the heart of our principles is restoring authority wherever possible to local communities, and that is another reason why we are investing in critical infrastructure. It is a productivity-increasing measure and often a local safety investment, which, in my electorate, will see opportunities blossom in line with the coalition's $8.5 million Bruce Highway upgrade.

Between the Sunshine Coast and the Longman electorate region of Moreton Bay, the Bruce Highway is the connector for employment, for tourism and for many students at the University of the Sunshine Coast. It also carries a large number of commuters from our region to Brisbane. With $3.3 billion of the coalition's Bruce Highway project to be injected in upgrades from the Pine River through to the Sunshine Coast, we have a long-term strategic plan that will make travel safer and unlock the potential of our area. Fifty million dollars has been earmarked for the planning and design of six lanes between Caboolture and Caloundra. The Bruce Highway improvements coincide with the development program for Caloundra south and Caboolture west—all in all, a huge boon for the growth of our region.

Let me assure the House and the people of Longman that the government will be delivering on my other key election commitments, including the upgrade of the dangerous D'Aguilar Highway, a major transport corridor heading west from Caboolture. In the lead-up to the 2010 federal election, I declared the coalition's resolve to reduce the tragedies occurring on the D'Aguilar Highway, pledging a multimillion-dollar funding commitment. Over the next three years, obviously while we were not in government, I persistently lobbied the then Labor government to prioritise the work, but my calls fell on deaf ears. Labor chose to ignore our region. Meanwhile, the highway's deterioration and inherent dangers only got worse. With the election of a coalition government, the D'Aguilar Highway will at last be made safer and more productive.

Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, the Hon. Jamie Briggs, was quick to come to the Longman electorate in the weeks after the 7 September election. In 2014, I will continue to bring Canberra's decision-makers to our region. The assistant minister confirmed during his visit that a $16 million upgrade of the D'Aguilar Highway would start this year, in an example of how under this coalition government local priorities will be vigorously prosecuted.

Another of my election commitments, a $250,000 grant to help redevelop Caboolture's Shirley Tinney Netball Complex, will be funded from the government's newly established $342 million Community Development Grants Program. I take this opportunity to thank the Prime Minister for coming to the netball courts to announce this great initiative for my local community. Further community development funding of $300,000 has been authorised for Dakabin railway station, after I undertook in the campaign to work with state and local governments to reduce the precinct's parking woes and increase safety. Two Green Army initiatives have been prioritised for Bribie Island—the Woorim Beach restoration and the Buckleys Hole stabilisation and upgrade have been approved—along with a third involving riparian repair at Burpengary Creek.

In addition to all the aforementioned community initiatives, the government are backing local hospital boards in my region and across the nation, taking control away from distant bureaucracies and putting the best part of every taxpayer dollar spent on health to patient care. Similarly, with public schools, we are supporting autonomy and the granting of authority to principals and local boards so that communities are having the biggest say in the running of their own schools.

To those opposite who are lost at sea when it comes to a coherent economic narrative for our nation, may my remarks today serve as a reminder that on this side of the House our bearings are set, our objectives are clear. The Australian government have a comprehensive plan which we have solidly begun, and we will build on it with a calm sense of purpose drawn from experience and expertise. One thing is sure: we will in the end be judged by the Australian electorate not on the words of our vision but on the breadth of our accomplishments. In this, the government are confident, for our plan is a plan of action.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014 and cognate bills and in support of the amendment moved by the member for Fraser. One of my first duties as a newly elected lower house MP was to visit local community organisations and find out the best way to support them in their work in the local community. Late last year, I was lucky enough to visit the Ted Noffs Foundation in Randwick. Founded in 1970 by that great Australian humanitarian the Reverend Ted Noffs, the foundation provides essential services for young people and their families who are experiencing drug and alcohol problems and related trauma. The foundation's Randwick service is the Program for Adolescent Life Management, PALM. It is a residential drug and alcohol initiative that offers young people with serious drug and alcohol abuse problems short-term accommodation and support to help them get back on their feet.

During my visit to the Ted Noffs Foundation, I was led around the facility by a young gentleman who had recently been a graduate of PALM. It was apparent to me the pride that he and his contemporaries had in the facility and the positivity that they felt for the future, thanks to their ongoing rehabilitation and the support that had been provided by the Ted Noffs Foundation and its staff. The previous Labor government, through its Building Multicultural Communities Program, last year announced funding support for the Ted Noffs Foundation of $85,000. This financial support under this program was fully assessed, it was notified to the organisations and it was fully costed and fully funded in the 2013-14 budget. Despite the coalition's promise that there would be no surprises, no excuses, one of its first acts was to freeze or cut this program's funding to not-for-profit groups. One of those organisations that suffered was the Ted Noffs Foundation in Randwick. Many other charities, local government organisations and volunteer organisations around Australia were also cut. In fact, I had two organisations that lost funding in my community because of this government's harsh cuts and broken election promises.

The Ted Noffs Foundation is one of many organisations around the country that have been left in limbo by the freeze of $11.5 million awarded under the Building Multicultural Communities Program. Broken commitments have unfortunately become a symbol of this government. They said one thing before the election and now they are doing another thing, but the people of Australia are beginning to learn this. Before the election, the government's commitment was clear—no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no cuts to pensions and no cuts to the ABC. In the wake of the election, we all know what is true, and this bill confirms that: $4.8 million cut from the education budget through this bill, $13.2 million cut from the health budget through this bill and $11.5 million cut from Building Multicultural Communities through this bill. This is a complete contradiction to the commitments made by this government to local communities, my community, the Australian people, prior to the election. All this is confirmed in the legislation we are debating today.

This comes on top of this government completely undermining the Gonski reforms. The Australian education system is failing our kids, and we have known this for quite a while. That is why the previous Labor government invested in a comprehensive study, an analysis of the problems in the Australian education system. This study was chaired by a prominent businessman and included the work of many academics and consultations with teachers, staff, parents and children about how to make our education system one of the best in the world. This significant reform will be life-changing for many students, but it has been completely sabotaged by this government.

There is no requirement for the states to sign up to additional funding for the delivery of the Gonski reforms. A cornerstone of these reforms was additional funding from the states, but that has been completely wiped out by this Minister for Education. There is no requirement for the states to sign up to a needs based funding model. The Gonski report identified that the problem with the Australian education system is that those who come from low socioeconomic backgrounds, those who have disabilities, those who come from an Aboriginal background and those at small schools in rural communities are falling behind. They are falling behind, and the education funding system is failing them. On that basis, a needs based funding model was put in place. That model rectifies those problems and provides additional funding for those schools and students that are falling behind. What is the response of this government? It has wiped out the integrity of that system.

This bill contains cuts in the order of $13.2 million to the health budget. Those cuts come on top of this government floating the idea of a Medicare co-payment. This co-payment will disproportionately affect low- to middle-income earners in our society, particularly in my community. The pensioner with a crook knee or a crook back who relies on regular visits to the GP for prescriptions and other medical support will be impacted by a Medicare co-payment. The young girl suffering from depression who regularly needs the support of her GP will be impacted by a co-payment on Medicare when visiting the GP. The people who will be stung by this government's health reforms will be low- to middle-income Australians, the most vulnerable and those who cannot afford the additional costs associated with a co-payment for regular visits to the GP.

Those opposite argue that the fiscal position of the government is unsustainable, and their speakers to this bill have made that point. We in the opposition accept that there needed to be structural reform of the budget position. Labor in government was delivering that structural reform. We improved the efficiency of expenditure when we were in government. To raise additional revenue we looked to parts of the economy that were performing well and were in many respects earning superprofits. We did not target or put that impost on low- to middle-income earners in our economy. A classic example of this is the reforms to superannuation. Labor in government identified that some members of our community had superannuation funds earning superprofits. Some of these people earned more than $100,000 on their money simply being in a superannuation fund. That was a drain on our fiscal system, so Labor sought to ensure those earning those superprofits paid their fair share.

At the same time we sought to encourage savings for low- to middle-income Australians, those who will struggle to fund their retirement because of inadequate superannuation balances. We sought to provide them with an incentive, a boost to their superannuation entitlements through the low-income superannuation contribution. What has this government's response been to that progressive reform? The response of this government has been to scrap the low-income superannuation contribution and to introduce a tax increase for 3½ million Australians, most of them women. Many of these women are struggling to make ends meet by working predominantly in part-time and casual employment. They need a boost to their superannuation if they are going to have any hope of retiring without relying on the pension.

Another area that Labor in government identified as a drain on the nation's finances was corporate profit shifting. Labor in government undertook a process of developing reforms to ensure that large corporations making significant profits paid their fair share. Pardon me for being cynical, but at the weekend I laughed at the comments of the Treasurer at the G20 conference in Sydney when talking about the need for cracking down on corporate profit shifting and the need to ensure that large corporations earning superprofits were paying their fair share of tax in Australia. This is what Treasurer Joe Hockey said about corporate profit shifting at the conference:

… we have seen the erosion of domestic tax bases resulting from international tax planning that takes advantage of the gaps in our current taxation systems.

And citizens expect a comprehensive response from the G20 on this, given the inefficiencies and unfairness apparent in the current system.

That was a position of our Treasurer on the weekend at the G20 conference. We do not disagree with any of that; in fact, we support the comments that were made by our nation's Treasurer. But what was the Treasurer's view in March last year? What was the Treasurer's opinion when Labor sought to do exactly that—when Labor sought to introduce those reforms that the Treasurer was speaking about on the weekend—through the introduction of the Tax Laws Amendment (Countering Tax Avoidance and Multinational Profit Shifting) Bill 2013? The view of the Treasurer, funnily enough, was to oppose that reform—opposing the reforms he spoke in support of on the weekend. In his speech to this parliament, not even a year ago, on this very question that the Treasurer was speaking positively about on the weekend, he said this in respect of the bill that was before the parliament to crack down on corporate profit shifting:

This bill is going to overlay complexity and compliance costs onto normal commercial transactions, whether business transactions, new investments or corporate restructures.

It is almost laughable that the Treasurer only 12 months ago saw corporate profit shifting as 'normal commercial transactions'. What an affront to the people of Australia that those opposite seek to come in here and cut money from the education budget, cut money from the health budget, when, at the time Labor was attempting to introduce reforms that would see those who are making big profits in our community pay more tax, those opposite, led by the member for North Sydney, opposed those reforms.

It was not just in that area—there were the thin capitalisation rules, there were the changes to fringe benefits taxation, and even the minerals resource rent tax. They were all opposed by those opposite. They were all reforms that would have ensured that the most profitable businesses paid more tax in our economy—paid taxes that fund better health services, better education services and the reforms that I have been speaking of. That symbolises the approach of this government to fiscal relations in this country. It symbolises the approach of this government to getting elected and breaking their commitments to the Australian community.

Their approach is to hit the most vulnerable, and it is contained in these bills—to hit the most vulnerable by getting rid of the low-income superannuation contribution, to hit the most vulnerable by floating the idea of a Medicare co-payment, to hit the most vulnerable by getting rid of the schoolkids bonus but at the same time giving a massive break to those who are earning large profits in our community. It is there in the Paid Parental Leave scheme; it is there in their opposition to the minerals resource rent tax; and it is there in these bills. That is why they must be opposed and that is why I support the amendment that was moved by the member for Fraser.

Peter Hendy (Eden-Monaro, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the three appropriation bills before the House. It gives me an opportunity to speak about the government's plans for jobs and to build a strong and prosperous economy. It also gives me an opportunity to talk about the massive repair job we need to do, given the legacy of the former government. I still find it amazing to contemplate how in six short years the other mob were able to trash Australia's great economic standing, which, in its turn, was the legacy of the Howard government.

Recently we saw the January unemployment rate rise to six per cent. While bad news, it was not a shock, as many commentators said. Indeed, it was a marker point on the way to the 6.25 per cent forecast by the federal Treasury during the dying days of the last Labor government. This is the economic legacy we have been left and now we are dealing with it.

When John Howard left office the unemployment rate was four per cent, and very soon after the 2007 election it fell slightly further to 3.9 per cent. It was a magnificent effort by Prime Minister Howard and his Liberal and National Party team to deliver that 3.9 per cent after inheriting from the Keating Labor government an unemployment rate of over eight per cent in 1996. It is instructive how many years it took—12 years—to get to that 3.9 per cent figure. Unemployment is an incredibly hard social problem to deal with; it takes years of effort. Now we have to again start a repair job after Labor has sent unemployment rising.

These bills help deal with the problem. In the period that the now Leader of the Opposition was employment minister, the number of unemployed people increased by 80,000. Over the full six years of the Labor government the jobless queues grew by 200,000. What is even more telling is that 129,000 manufacturing jobs, over one in every 10, disappeared completely. Labor made it harder for businesses, particularly manufacturing businesses, to employ people by hitting them with the $9 billion a year carbon tax, hitting them with a mining tax, abolishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission and massively increasing red tape. They still do not recognise the destructiveness of those policies.

As the former chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and industry, I note that the impact on small business has been particularly devastating. In my electorate of Eden-Monaro small business is the lifeblood of rural communities. Across the nation some 21,000 additional regulations were created over that six years, stagnating small business employment levels, resulting in 3,000 fewer small businesses which employed people. The overall result for small business has been staggering. Under Labor 412,000 jobs were lost in small business. In fact, the small business share of the private sector workforce went from 53 per cent to 43 per cent.

Only the coalition has a plan to create jobs by getting the budget in order, taxes down, regulation down and productivity up. The bills before the House, which are the start of the budget repair job, will assist in doing that. The bottom line is that the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government left us with $123 billion in deficits over the next four years of the forward estimates, which will add to a prospective total debt bill of $667 billion if no remedial action is taken. The minister noted in his second reading speech that there are a number of significant items proposed for appropriation. They relate to a one-off grant to the Reserve Bank of Australia, alterations to the foreign aid budget, alterations to the budget for immigration and border protection and changes to the defence budget. I will have something to say on all four of these issues.

The largest item in the bills is an appropriation for just over $8.8 billion to the Department of the Treasury for a one-off grant to the Reserve Bank to meet its request to strengthen its financial position and boost the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund. This payment is needed because of the woeful budget practice of the former Treasurer the member for Lilley. The member for McMahon, who was subsequently Treasurer, had a cameo role in this, but it would be unfair to pin it all on him; he will get a further mention later in this speech. The recent treatment of the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund has been the subject of an inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, of which I am a member. I will not pre-empt the forthcoming review of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report 2013 that is being prepared by the committee. However, the matter has been the subject of much public commentary, and a public hearing of the Standing Committee on Economics where the RBA Governor, Glenn Stevens, was quizzed on the issue occurred on 18 December.

Without delving into the minutiae, the basic facts are clear. The Reserve Bank Reserve Fund stood at approximately $2.5 billion at 30 June 2013 following distributions from earnings available and paid as dividends to the Commonwealth Treasury. In layman's terms, Treasurer Swan raided the RBA for large dividend payments to shore up his parlous deficit problems and disregarded the need for the RBRF to be adequately replenished when it faced foreign exchange losses. This brought the RBRF levels down to 3.8 per cent of assets at risk. At the hearings of the economics committee on 18 December 2013, the governor stated that the board's view was that an appropriate level for the RBRF was 15 per cent of assets at risk. The government is meeting the advised target. As was stated in the December 2013 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook on page 194:

The grant will ensure that the RBA is adequately resourced to conduct its monetary policy and foreign exchange operations in an environment of financial market volatility.

Simply put, the government is repairing another problem left by the previous government after the dividend raids on the RBA.

The second significant item in the bills is just over $2.5 billion for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade reappropriating amounts previously provided to the former agency AusAID that are required this financial year for expenditure by DFAT. Again, this is an area where the coalition has had to rescue the budget from an uncontrolled blow-out that is simply unaffordable in the current circumstances. This uncontrolled blow-out was principally the baby of the former member for Griffith, Kevin Rudd, when he was Prime Minister and particularly when he was foreign minister. However, the former member for Perth, Stephen Smith, and former Senator Bob Carr need to take their share of responsibility, for the time when they were respectively the foreign minister.

As we noted before the election, the coalition was concerned about the rapid increase in foreign aid described in the 2011 Independent review of aid effectiveness as 'steep and challenging' in light of real concerns about the ability of AusAID and other agencies to manage such a program efficiently and effectively. The coalition therefore committed to restricting the growth in overseas development assistance to increases in the consumer price index over the forward estimates. Our commitment will see annual increases in nominal funding in the aid budget and will ensure that Australians can be confident aid will be delivered more efficiently and effectively. Consistent with these benchmarks, the coalition remains committed to increasing the foreign aid program towards 0.5 per cent of gross national income. However, we were not satisfied with either the quality of governance of the program or the strategic priorities which were skewed by Labor's campaign for the UN Security Council seat. As members will know, since the election we have started the repair job. Principal among the reforms has been the winding up of AusAID and bringing the foreign aid bureaucracy back into the department. This is an important reform. The coalition will also review the priorities within the existing foreign aid budget to consolidate our aid efforts on the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean regions and to focus on the quality and rigorous administration of that effort.

The third significant allocation in the bills is for just over $1.1 billion for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, particularly including amounts for offshore asylum-seeker processing. Again, if we are assigning blame for the debacle over border security it is hard to know where to start. Probably the award winner was former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who proudly claimed authorship, when in opposition, of the immigration policy that catastrophically saw over a thousand people drowned. However, there are few innocents on the other side. The gaggle of immigration ministers, including former Senator Chris Evans and the current members for O'Connor, McMahon and Watson, all need to share the responsibility. As the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection informed the House last sitting week, under the last government border security was in chaos, with 800 boats and over 50,000 illegal arrivals. Most damning of all, there were over a thousand deaths. Someone has calculated that that is a death every two days over Labor's six years of government.

We can divide up those numbers of arrivals between the Labor immigration ministers. The member for Watson when he was the minister oversaw, in the two months he was in the job, almost 5,000 arrivals. When the member for Gorton was minister he was responsible for 12,500 of them. The biggest stain was on the member for McMahon, who oversighted 25,000 arrivals on some 400 boats. That is your line-up of gold, silver and bronze in a competition that Labor should be utterly ashamed of. They left tens of thousands of people to deal with, with some 8,000 of them being children. This is an awful problem we are now seeking to fix. We are stopping the boats—

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. The member for Eden-Monaro will have leave to continue his remarks when the debate is resumed.