Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on these appropriation bills noting that many of the measures outlined in these bills come as a result of Labor's poor and reckless financial management during their term of government. The coalition government has been saddled with the task of responsibly getting the budget and the economy back on track. At the last election Australians saw the need to return to proper, responsible and prudent government, to put the nation's books back in order. Australian voters saw a need for less grandstanding and more integrity. In short, they saw the need for a coalition government. Now the challenge on this side of the House is to determine how best to repair the damage of Labor's wilful neglect of the fundamentals of economic management. Our coalition government promotes efficient policies—policies where government is able to deliver more services for less money. Removing unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy will see taxpayers' money actually improve frontline services rather than being wasted on backroom paperwork.

Against that background I want to raise the important question of our foreign aid system. It is time that we redefine how we measure the impact of Australia's foreign aid. Instead of foreign aid being judged by merely the number of dollars spent, the key indicator of a project's success should be what is actually achieved on the ground. Let me be very clear: I am a strong supporter of foreign aid in our region. But success should not be measured merely by dollars spent. It must be evaluated by actual success on the ground, where it counts. Equally, I do not claim to have all the answers to this challenge. Many of the world's best minds have turned their attention to how to better achieve the goals of aid delivery. But my discussions with aid recipients, donors, workers and governments continue to disclose that we appear to be just as far from a solution as ever.

In discussions on defence there has been this popular but succinct reference to the 'teeth-to-tail ratio'—a consideration of the funds and resources that go to the support services for our military as opposed to the actual fighting component. The aid debate confronts similar challenges. The cost of delivery of aid on occasions appears to outweigh the aid itself and in quite properly trying to protect the integrity of our aid system we burden ourselves with the bureaucracy and inflexibility that can overwhelm the good intentions. The capacity to respond quickly to issues, apart from an ambassador's discretionary fund, is under real challenge. For this reason, I believe that it is time to look at our aid delivery mix. While I was in Papua New Guinea with the Australian Defence Force I was inspired to some extent by a discussion that I had with Sir Peter Barter and Father Jan Czuba, the president of Divine Word University, about the benefits of institution-to-institution support as an effective method of aid delivery. It raised real questions in my mind as to how we can move forward in this field.

Importantly, it also raises questions as to how we might explore more effective partnership relationships to improve aid delivery. These alternatives range from public-private partnerships through to the whole question of social entrepreneurship. Often private companies already operating in country are in a better position to provide aid more efficiently and more effectively, where it is needed most, directly to the people who need it most, rather than duplication by often complex organisational structures with support staff. At least 80 per cent of today's assistance comes from non-public sources, up 30 per cent from 40 years ago, according to the US Agency for International Development's assistant administrator for global health. Private providers' foundations, non-government, faith based and community organisations as well as corporations and educational institutions bring the bulk of humanitarian funds to the world's needy nations, according to a 2008 press release from USAID. They have estimated that from an initial investment of $2.1 billion in public funds USAID was able to leverage an additional $5.8 billion in private funds and contributions. That is almost three private sector dollars for every dollar of public taxpayer funds. Yet financing from grants and foundations is not as readily available as in the past and the number of non-governmental organisations has increased significantly, thus increasing demands on public funds.

Social entrepreneurship has become a topic of significant study in the past decade, as non-profit organisations, which were the primary providers of service for the social good, began struggling to remain solvent. Social entrepreneurship includes businesses with primarily social objectives that reinvest the bulk of their profits either back into the enterprise itself or into the community. The world has witnessed a variety of experiments in government based efforts to tackle poverty. Such efforts lead to many notable successes, such as increased access to education and health care. In our region the success of microfinance schemes speaks volumes. Limits to government programs, however, have also been noted, with critiques that such programs are excessively bureaucratic, ineffective, wasteful, political and the antithesis to innovation. The risk of fraud, waste and abuse of power necessitated the dominant organising method of government agencies to be a bureaucracy. As a consequence, government agencies often lack the freedom to explore a wide range of alternatives, largely because they are hampered by bureaucratic rules, legislative mandates, political considerations and a fixed budget. In summary, government is a tool that is effective for some kinds of social interventions but not as effective for others.

Many academics agree that foreign aid began with the four-point program of Harry S Truman in 1949. Part of the motivation behind aid was the race for developed nations to provide aid to Third World countries so they would not fall under the influence of communists or communist nations. As the concept of foreign aid evolved, some internationally recognised economists such as Jeffrey Sachs postulated that the key to ending extreme poverty was to help the poorest nations get their foot on the ladder of development. He indicated that, with foreign aid in the amount promised by developed nations, poor nations would be able to get enough of a boost to get on the first rung, from which they would be able to continue the climb independently.

William Easterly, a professor of economics at NYU, referred to the rich developed nations as 'the West' and the poorer or undeveloped nations as 'the rest'. On the other hand, Easterly believed that it was important for the West to recognise that development happens mainly through home-grown efforts and that, rather than imposing Western ideals of utopia on developing nations, we should instead concentrate on more modest, doable steps to make people's lives better. Easterly believed that the developed nations provide foreign aid and development programs through the lens of Western culture, with a focus on significant bureaucracy and planned approaches that do not involve the people the services aim to benefit. Easterly advocates resource use at a grassroots level rather than 'large international bureaucracies giving aid to large national government bureaucracies'.

The debate between Sachs and Easterly reflects the challenges of aid delivery and the reality that there is no magic pill, or should I say nanopatch, to resolve this debate. But there is cause for optimism. During my visits to Papua New Guinea, most recently through the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program, I was able to observe the positive force for good that some privately funded programs are delivering to communities in PNG.

The PNG LNG Project is an example. This joint venture between ExxonMobil and Oil Search has developed an efficient community health impact management program as part of their project constructing the LNG pipeline. Oil Search's community relationship work is highly regarded in PNG. Publications from the PNG LNG Project outline how they are working in partnership with the Papua New Guinea Institute of Medical Research and Population Services International, and have developed a community health impact program to function across all project areas. PNGIMR is using an integrated health demographic surveillance system, or IHDSS, to monitor the impact of the PNG LNG Project on the health of communities, while providing the evidence base for curative and preventive interventions targeting key health problems. The IHDSS is used at key project locations and matched control sites to systematically collect objective health and population data. It also provides a timely response to disease outbreaks that could potentially disrupt project operations, through the placement of clinicians at selected key health facilities. These activities will ultimately enhance local healthcare delivery.

The PNGIMR Partnership in Health Project has been validated by the lenders group's review team and independent science advisory panel composed of internationally recognised tropical disease and demographic experts. Significant improvements in facilities' healthcare delivery have occurred in the PNG LNG Project villages, and invaluable health information has been collected. This will enable provincial and national health authorities to effectively plan and implement health services.

The Enhanced Community Health Project incorporates community education, awareness and training to address health and wellness initiatives and encourage disease prevention, reproductive health behaviours and awareness of non-communicable disease issues. The following activities have been promoted through the Enhanced Community Health Project: marital relationship training to help reduce episodes of gender based violence and alcohol consumption and to reinforce positive health behaviours; water and sanitation hygiene activities; scholarships for in-service healthcare workers and preservice students from project areas to pursue health subjects at the Divine Word University in Madang; and STI and HIV/AIDS prevention along the Highlands Highway to help improve self-protection.

The PNG LNG Project also has a workforce development program. This aims to create local jobs for local people and train them in the technical and professional skills that are needed during the construction phase of the project, and, importantly, provide future employment opportunities either with the production phase of the project or elsewhere. Workforce development encompasses so much of what will contribute to the success of the PNG LNG Project. The project boasts that, at the end of August 2013, almost 7,700 Papua New Guinea citizens were employed on project activities. Building the skills of PNG workers through training is part of the project's National Content Plan and an opportunity to leave a lasting, positive legacy for PNG. As of August 2013, more than 10,000 Papua New Guinea citizens have been trained for construction and operation roles across all project sites, and more than 1.9 million training hours have been delivered through more than 4,160 courses.

Also of note is the operation of Site Skills Training, who have joined with the Ipatas Foundation in Enga Province to train 120 locals in areas of heavy diesel maintenance, construction and fabrication as well as camp services, cookery and logistics at the site's facility at Clark in the Philippines. The six months training will also include community skills, cultural and religious tolerance, and gender awareness. On successful completion, the participants, men and women, are guaranteed employment through Orion Project Services. As Vern Wills, the Managing Director of Site Skills Training, said at the launch last year, they 'provide a path of certainty for PNG nationals to gain the necessary skills to participate in the construction and operation of PNG projects.'

I have also recently met with a number of representatives from Abt JTA, which is a specialist international health and social sector consulting company that provides services to public and private sector clients. Our discussions included their involvement with private sector aid and development occurring in PNG. We discussed how effective it was, and how positive the results have been thus far. I have also spoken to representatives from faith based charity organisations and been briefed on the Churches of Christ medical centre in Vanuatu which far exceeds the capabilities of the government supported hospitals on the islands.

The success of these organisations provides real hope for the future of our aid delivery. Of course, nothing is simple in this field, and I appreciate the challenges in the area of capacity building. I am also acutely aware of the frustration of recipient governments and communities, who do want aid that acknowledges local needs and expectations.

This government is about providing a hand up, not a handout, about providing more for less. This government is about providing aid more efficiently and more effectively. Those words are not mere rhetoric. In short, the success of our aid program must be measured by results on the ground, not by the dollar value of our aid budget. The more effective we are in delivering our aid, the more we can do to reduce the costs of delivery and increase the proportion actually spent on the ground. The more we do to achieve these goals, the happier will be the aid recipients, recipient governments and, of course, the taxpayers of Australia.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor 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 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014. In these bills, the government is requesting that parliament approve additional expenditure, which largely reflects the government's decisions outlined in the 2013-14 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook.

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014 seeks approval for additional appropriations of just under $11.6 billion from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The departmental appropriation provided in the bill is a one-off measure for the Department of Parliamentary Services operating costs for the 2013-14 financial year. Much of this is pretty standard, although I am not sure what chunk of those funds will be devoted towards moving the Attorney-General's bookshelf. I understand that it will be a significant part of that. I know it is a significant operation. It is soon to be a tourism project in Parliament House in and of itself, so I look forward to that adding to the tourism in the ACT, and I am sure that the Australian people are happy that they have contributed to nearly 50 metres of bookshelf for the Attorney-General! He does have a lot of books.

It has been six months since the election, so we are one-sixth of the way through the election cycle. Obviously, appropriations are all about governments laying out their agenda. So it is timely to have a look at where we were before the election on 7 September and also have a look at the state of play now, before I touch on some of the appropriation items.

When the Australian Labor Party took office in 2007, the Australian economy was the 15th largest in the world. When we left six months ago, our economy was the 12th largest in the world. It is also good to look at a few other things, just in case some of those other nations had changed. Six months ago, the ASX was trading at a five-year high. GDP was 2.6 per cent. Unemployment, at 5.7 per cent, was still the envy of the world. Inflation was at 2.4 per cent. Australia had been given a AAA credit rating by all three ratings agencies. We had experienced 22 years of continuous growth, so growth that had come in under Hawke and Keating had continued under Howard and then on to the Labor governments. As well, about one million jobs were created during that time of Labor being in office.

And then there were the other factors beyond those dry economic figures. According to the OECD's measurement of the best and happiest country in the world, Australia won those titles in 2011, 2012 and 2013. Obviously there were challenges, but it was helped by having those record low interest rates and government gross debt to GDP at 20 per cent. Then there were those other social investments, such as investing in education, as in the Gonski plan, and the NDIS—significant achievements that will be seen for years to come.

I would also put in there other significant investments like putting a price on carbon. I know you have a young child, Deputy Speaker Vasta. You obviously want to make sure that there is a planet around for your young child so that when he gives you grandchildren you will be able to talk to them. It is important that we put a price on carbon, and the most effective way to do that is obviously a market—not by buying magic dirt but by having a market. It is the most cost-effective mechanism. And obviously, as we transition our economy, we need to invest in the jobs of the future. How do you do that? You invest in the National Broadband Network. They are some of the Labor legacies. I just wanted to touch base to compare where we were.

Obviously, before the election, where the Liberal and National parties received significant support from the Australian community, there were lots of promises. I seem to recall the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister Abbott, stating repeatedly that, if debt is the problem, more debt is not the answer. Since coming into government the Liberal-National Party government has borrowed about $50 billion. I will touch on that a little bit later.

They also said some other things. I remember running in 2007, 2010 and 2013. There were some joint tickets, such as on the renewable energy target. I know that there are climate change sceptics in the government at the moment, but basically everyone agreed that it was a good thing to invest in the renewable energy target—and also in jobs, taxation, health and education. All of those things were big-ticket items where the promises made before the election were completely different to how the government have acted since the election, in the last six months.

In fact, I remember those billboards about debt and discussions about debt. Every second press conference was about debt. And then one of the first pieces of legislation to go through this parliament was where the Liberal and National parties joined up with the Greens to effectively bring in unlimited debt, even after Prime Minister Abbott, in opposition, talking endlessly about our skyrocketing debt. Then they came in and brought in legislation to bring in unlimited debt. In the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook there were changes made to allow these increased debt levels.

This is the oldest trick in the book. It is basically where a government, when it comes in, says: 'Oh, my goodness! Look at the books! Look at these horrible things! We'll have to have a big audit, and then we'll start bringing in cuts.' I have seen the play book. You have seen the play book, Deputy Speaker Vasta, because it occurred right in Queensland under Premier Newman. They came in. They brought in an independent, trusted figure—sorry, no, they brought in Peter Costello; I beg your pardon!

He said, 'You need to cut things, you need to sell off assets.' That is what we have taking place in Queensland.

We look at the playbook being followed by Prime Minister Abbott who comes in with a bit of fudging of the figures, in terms of looking at PEFO and MYEFO, to say, 'No, the debt is horrible.' Then we wait for the commission of cuts, the National Commission of Audit, to provide its data. Obviously, it will particularly attack the lower to middle class. It will not be looking for savings in things like the mining tax, a profit-based tax, which is something that every sensible Liberal Party person should support. It would mean when businesses are making super profits, they give money to the Australian economy—to the Australian people. They are a little bit cyclical; that is the nature of the coalmining and iron ore industry. We had this argument 30 or 40 years ago when we were talking about offshore petroleum as well. It has delivered nearly $30 billion of savings to the Australian people. I could never understand why a Liberal government would be against this mining tax.

Let us have a look at what has happened in the last six months. The government's first budget document includes a $17 billion blow-out. This is a 50 per cent increase in the budget deficit compared to what we had outlined. Why is that? It is because a significant part of it is giving money to the Reserve Bank, nearly $9 billion. The Treasurer's decision to top up the Reserve Bank with $8.8 billion of borrowed money lacks any evidence. It is hard to see why he would do that. There are a couple of different reasons floating around; one is that he said that Labor had taken a larger dividend from the bank and that it seemed appropriate. However, if you adjust for inflation, the Howard government took about $3 billion per year from the Reserve Bank and Labor only about $1½ billion per year.

It is a simple tactic from the Treasurer to shift the blame onto somebody else—to target Labor. It is one of the sad things about this job. What I saw in opposition for six years I have seen continue for the last six months. There is no vision, no planning for the future and no fighting for jobs. Instead we have had more and more job cuts announced and we do not seem to have a plan emerging out of those opposite at all.

The reality is we have had job cuts announced at Holden, job cuts announced at Qantas and job cuts announced throughout the economy. When we left, there was solid growth projected by the same people who are giving information to the Treasurer. They projected solid growth. We know that the unemployment rate was low by historical standards. It still needed more work to be done, particularly in the area of youth unemployment; I know that is an emerging issue on the south side of Brisbane and in Brisbane generally. We do need to do more.

Under Labor we had gross debt projected to peak at $370 billion in 2016-17. That is the reality. There are calls from some to increase taxes, but I need to point out a few things. The federal tax-to-GDP ratio was 24 per cent under the Howard government. When we left it fell to 23 per cent. I know there are arguments about that, especially around some of those investments in social infrastructure like the NDIS and Gonski education funding. While they are social policies, they do deliver economic benefits. If you add together local and state government taxes we are still effectively a low-tax country. If you compare us to countries like the United Kingdom and New Zealand and work out their levels of government, they are nudging 40 per cent of GDP. That is nowhere near what we have here.

Now I come back to jobs. This has been a big issue in the parliament last week and this week. I remember an ad from when I was younger. I would leave St George and come to Brisbane where we would see commercial TV. I remember the advertisement that went 'Football, meat pies, kangaroos and Holden cars.' Now, sadly, under this Treasurer—a guy named after the Prime Minister of the day, Chifley, when the first Holden car rolled off the line—we have pressure on the Qantas kangaroo. It would be a shame to think that we are a nation that does not have a national airline; a nation that does not have our own cars. Who knows what the next target will be for Mr Abbott? Whether it will be football or meat pies I am yet to see. Effectively, we have seen 7,100 full-time jobs lost across the economy in January, taking the number of full-time jobs lost since the government was elected only six months ago to 63,300.

Given Labor's six per cent unemployment, I ask the government to reconsider this stand-off approach. I know they have articulated a stand-off approach when it comes to public transport; they made that clear. They are not interested in investing in public transport, I understand that. But when it comes to jobs, surely they need to see the cost to society. They keep talking about the global financial crisis, forgetting that under Labor 200,000 jobs losses were averted. What does that mean? It is an easy figure to roll off, but that means households were kept together. That means kids did not have the shame, embarrassment and stress associated with having no jobs in the house. I am proud of that record under Prime Minister Rudd and Prime Minister Gillard. We kept people in their jobs. We kept the unemployment rate under six per cent.

Sadly, the current government is making decisions to assist the wealthy and those Australians who are in stable jobs. It seems to be a tactic where they are suggesting that anyone connected with unions. The unions' negotiating power tends to mean more stable jobs and higher returns. That is the fundamental benefit of enterprise bargaining. It is something that those opposite do not seem to understand. We do not want to go back to those days of centralised wage fixing. We need a market mechanism, and enterprise bargaining is that mechanism.

If they believe we should just let the market rip, I can take them to countries where that occurs. It is a horror for society, a horror for communities and a horror for young people in particular. It entrenches privilege, and that is not the sort of Australia we are about. We have always been a country where people have been able to get on in life, mainly through the mechanisms of support in the workplace and education—the two things that seem to be in the crosshairs for Mr Abbott and Mr Pyne.

Obviously, productivity is a significant factor. I remember the productivity data when we took office. It was effectively at zero. It is starting to trend northwards. Things like the NBN and some of the other major infrastructure investments are a good thing. I know infrastructure investment is something Australia does well. When we took office, of OECD nations, we were ranked 20th. When we left office, in terms of public infrastructure, we were ranked first. That turnaround will bring benefits and jobs for the Australian community for years to come.

It is now 177 days since the election. Prime Minister Abbott committed to an employment forum in my electorate to occur within 100 days of the election. That has not occurred. I am writing to him to ask for it to occur as quickly as possible. (Time expired)

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014 and the cognate bills, and to provide some context to the election commitments made to the Solomon electorate by the coalition during the 2013 federal election. Until self-government in 1978, the Northern Territory was effectively a sub-branch of the Commonwealth, with our decisions being made in Canberra on our behalf. Remnants of Canberra's administration still exist in the Top End, some of which are contained in the architecture on the various military bases around Darwin and a handful of old government housing complexes in and around the city.

One towering example of the Commonwealth's administration in the Territory exists in the monolithic form of the Royal Darwin Hospital. The hospital was commissioned for construction in 1974, based on Canberra's own Woden hospital design, which itself had been lifted from a Canadian model. Royal Darwin Hospital has about 350 beds, a workforce of approximately 1,500 and it is the only teaching hospital in the Northern Territory. Its services include anaesthetics, cardiology, emergency, intensive care, surgery, pathology and radiology, and it treats patients from right across the Northern Territory as well as, in some circumstances, north-west Western Australia.

The Royal Darwin Hospital is also host to the acclaimed National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre, a Howard government initiative that is on call to respond to crises in the northern region. In the fewer than 10 years since it began operating, the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre has established an impressive CV including, most recently, sending two AusMATs and a field hospital to the Philippines to work with those injured as a result of Typhoon Haiyan.

As I mentioned earlier, the hospital design was taken from a Canadian template. That probably explains why Royal Darwin Hospital came complete with snow shutters. I do not ever expect that snow shutters will ever be required in beautiful tropical Darwin, but we have them in this hospital. The hospital has done remarkably well to have grown as the Darwin community has grown. I pay tribute to the incredible group of people who work there night and day to treat the often complex admissions through its doors. Over the next few years, the hospital is expected to reach capacity, and it is estimated that it will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to expand and grow the facility to meet future demands.

It is on that basis that I would like to thank my good friend the now federal Minister for Health, Mr Peter Dutton, who listened patiently to my constant demands about the need for the coalition to properly fund the construction of a new hospital in the Top End. Recognising that more money was required than the $70 million that was proposed by the previous Labor government for the funding of stage 1, I was able to secure an additional $40 million, which was confirmed during the election campaign. The coalition having been re-elected, that money is secure. The Commonwealth will contribute $110 million towards the construction of stage 1 of the Palmerston Regional Hospital. My good friend Northern Territory Minister for Health Robyn Lambley confirmed that the Northern Territory government will contribute another $40 million That is a total of $150 million which will be used for construction in stage 1 of the Palmerston hospital. As I have said a number of times, the Palmerston Regional Hospital was a key election promise for the people of Solomon, and it was my great pleasure to have both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health in the electorate when that major announcement was made.

A few weeks ago the scoping study detailing the first stage of the Palmerston Regional Hospital services was released to the public. For the benefit of you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and others, I will cite some information contained in that document. The Palmerston Regional Hospital in stage 1 will be a level 3 service hospital, meaning that the care provided is for management of low-complexity and low-risk cases. General medicine will include cancer services, diabetes services, cardiology, gastroenterology, infectious diseases services and renal services. Maternity will include neonatal, obstetrics and paediatrics services. The core services provided will be supported by several clinical support services—for example, a 24-hour emergency department supported by pathology and pharmacy. The emergency department will incorporate 24/7 medical and nursing cover and will provide triage assessment, resuscitation and stabilisation. The Northern Territory government advises that some trauma patients—for example, those with serious head injuries—may be transferred to the Royal Darwin Hospital.

There are a number of private health service providers interested in being involved in the development of this new Palmerston hospital. The private sector involvement will ensure that the taxpayers' contribution will go further and maximise the new facility's capability. Work on the Palmerston Regional Hospital is expected to begin later this year. As Darwin and Palmerston grow, so too will this very important facility.

The previous federal Labor government provided funding for a hospital to be built on approximately three hectares, a block the mayor of Palmerston said at the time was unsuitable for development. The new site has been selected by the Northern Territory Giles government and is on the corner of the Stuart Highway and Temple Terrace. It has approximately 40 hectares, so there is space for unlimited expansion as well as the development of ancillary services going forward. It is a site that will grow with the community. Anyone who has lived in Palmerston knows only too well that Palmerston is the fastest-growing city.

Nathan Barrett, who is contesting the seat of Blain for the Country Liberals in the upcoming by-election, is only too aware of how important it is to get the planning right and build a sustainable hospital that will grow with the community, unlike Labor's plan, which was basically done on the back of an envelope. Like me, Nathan has lived in Palmerston for over 20 years and understands firsthand what we need. I hope that he is elected because I am confident that he will be able to work with the other members of the Palmerston team—the member for Drysdale, Lia Finocchiaro, and the member for Brennan, Peter Chandler—to ensure that we get a state-of-the-art hospital that can be built in stages and grow with the Palmerston community. This will be possible because half of the coalition's additional $40 million contribution for the Palmerston Regional Hospital was funded in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, and I understand the remainder will be contained in this year's budget.

Tiger Brennan Drive is another key issue for Top Enders. During the election campaign, the now Minister for Foreign Affairs, my good friend the Hon. Julie Bishop, came to the electorate of Solomon and announced $70 million for the duplication of Tiger Brennan Drive, the second arterial road between Darwin and Palmerston. We have made this funding available earlier than expected so the Giles government can get on and build the duplication of the 12 kilometres of road between Berrimah Road and the Darwin central business district. This is a vital piece of infrastructure for all Darwin and Palmerston residents.

We also promised some CCTVs. The Minister for Justice, the Hon. Michael Keenan, is a long-time friend of the Territory and through the safer streets program he confirmed my request of $300,000 for the rollout of the CCTVs in crime hot spots around Darwin and Palmerston. At this stage, the cameras are earmarked for hot spots in Nightcliff, Karama and Palmerston, but the final decision will be made in conjunction with the Northern Territory Police Force.

Grassroots sports were also funded during my election campaign. The coalition are well aware of the important role local sports clubs and associations play in the fabric of the Top End community. South Darwin Rugby League Club will receive $99,000 for upgrades to the Warren Park ground, the home of junior rugby league; the Darwin Table Tennis Association will get $13,000 for the purchase of 15 internationally certified competition tables; $5,200 will go to the Berrimah Riding Club to erect shade sails over the horse wash at Robbie Robbins Reserve; and the Palmerston Football Club will get $8,700 for the construction of new player locker rooms.

My 2013 election commitments can be summarised as promises that will provide assistance to the community and to sporting organisations, tools to assist police in addressing law and order, improvements to transport and infrastructure and significant funding for the construction of stage 1 of Palmerston Regional Hospital. Other promises, including scrapping Labor's carbon tax and stopping the boats that led to more than 1,000 deaths at sea were also part of my core promises. Unlike Labor, the coalition's election commitments in Solomon were targeted, costed and necessary; what is more, our promises will be kept. Labor, on the other hand, simply would not and could not keep their promises. In Solomon, I have had a number of groups come to my electorate office asking when they will receive the money that Labor promised. There were the oversized cheques for media purposes and the bells and whistles and the songs and dances that went along with Labor announcements. But there was one thing missing: the money. The cheques bounced when the organisations tried to cash them in. We already knew that we could not trust Labor with credit cards, but now it seems they have been writing rubbery cheques in marginal seats, particularly in my electorate. The reason for that is simply that Labor cannot be trusted to do what they say. Those on that side do not like hearing about their failures and, believe me, there have been many of them. The Labor way is simply to rewrite history and we see them do it time and time again.

The coalition government have been left to make the tough decisions that Labor simply were incapable of making. When Labor took government in 2007, they inherited a $20 billion surplus—an enormous amount of money on the back of the sound economic management by then Treasurer Peter Costello and the booming economy that created opportunities for anybody in the community who wanted to have a go. When the coalition took over management of the Treasury last September, we found that not only was the cupboard bare but the cupboard was full of unpaid bills. Labor left behind a projected budget deficit of $30 billion—$30 billion racked up on the credit card that will have to be paid off before the national budget can once again get back in surplus. Labor turned nearly $50 billion in the bank into a projected net debt of over $200 billion, the fastest deterioration in debt in dollar terms and as a share of GDP in modern Australian history. In interest payments alone, Labor's debt is already costing $10 billion and that is before we even get around to servicing the debt. Is it any wonder that Australians do not trust Labor to manage the national economy?

The tough measures the government will have to adopt going forward will be targeted. They will be designed to protect the most disadvantaged among us, but they will also be there to return Australia to a situation where we pay our own way and are responsible for our own financial destiny.

I conclude my speech today by paying tribute to the families, to the workers and to the businesses in my electorate who are out there having a go in the wonderful cities of Darwin and Palmerston. It is a great place to live and to raise a family and, with the sound guidance of the coalition government, I predict that in coming years it will only get better.

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

I found myself quite absorbed when I was listening to the contribution by the member for Solomon. If I were to take at face value what she was saying and to believe what she was saying, I would also have to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden because it sounded as though we were having a digression into Pollyanna's world, a world the member for Solomon would like to see existing rather than the world that does exist.

Here in Australia we have a government which was elected without a plan, one which has no vision and no policies. The Abbott government was elected on a platform that was driven by a plan to undo rather than to do, to move back rather than to move forward, with a negative agenda driven by ideologues who have their vision of what the world should be and are trying to socially engineer our country, Australia, to put in place that social engineering—cutting welfare for the most marginal Australians while giving $75,000 to wealthy women when they have babies.

In the first two months alone, the Abbott government targeted school payments, small businesses, the environment, community safety and public programs. The schoolkids bonus was their first target, then vehicle depreciation for small business and the Climate Change Commission, an organisation the Prime Minister and those on the other side sought to ignore and to demonise rather than to listen to. Crime prevention grants that were funded in the last budget and set to go were abandoned. The NBN rollout is definitely under question and has been put on hold by those on the other side of this House. We really do not know what their plan is for a national broadband network. Each day it changes. It is a moving feast. Every time the minister has a new idea, a thought bubble, he throws it out there and then the next day it changes again. We are really not too sure what is happening with the NBN. Student debts could increase and I am worried about disability services being on the chopping block. And Centrelink services are being cut back.

This is what I find so amusing about the member for Solomon's contribution to the debate. One of the first acts of the Abbott government was to increase our credit limit to $500 billion—hardly the act of a fiscally responsible and frugal government. Add to that, that the debt level has increased and our budget deficit has blown out; yet it is put to us that those on the other side of this parliament have the answers. I would argue that the answers they have are bad answers—answers that are not delivering to the Australian people.

While the member for Solomon may have had a significant amount of money given to sporting groups in her electorate, with promises made prior to the election and every little community group being given a little bit of money, in Shortland electorate, unfortunately, the government has clawed back money allocated under the previous budget to a fantastic project in Shortland electorate, the Gulgul Barang Youth Support Centre. The Abbott government has refused to honour a funding commitment to build the Gulgul Barang Youth Support Centre at San Remo. The Darkinjung Aboriginal Land Council donated the land and the former Labor government committed $2.7 million to build the centre in an area where it is starved of resources. Federal minister Warren Truss has refused to honour that commitment. It could have been a major boost for that region and a significant support for young people in the northern part of the Wyong Shire. I am really devastated that this project will not proceed. It was such a worthwhile project. It was to be a partnership between the Darkinjung people, the San Remo Neighbourhood Centre and a plethora of community groups that had come together. The local schools, the local employment agencies, the social inclusion program that was operating in the area—each and every one of those groups had contributed to this proposal.

Now those on the other side of the House, led by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer and of course in this particular case by Minister Truss, have decided that people who are deprived of resources—people who really need this so that they have a chance in life, so that they have the tools to actually find the jobs and become involved in every aspect of our society—are being denied that opportunity. Instead of adopting an enabling approach and putting in place a Gulgul Barang centre, what this government decided to do was introduce a punitive approach.

It is planning—if we are to believe the reports in the media—to make cuts to people receiving Newstart if they are not prepared to travel 90 kilometres a day. I might add that except for the few jobs in the local area on the northern part of the Central Coast people in my electorate have to either travel to Newcastle for work or travel to Sydney, which comes into that 90 kilometres.

One area where people in my electorate could find work previously was at the Bluetongue Brewery. Carlton United has put on the record that it is closing that brewery. The member for Dobell said there are support services in place for those workers. Yes, that always happens when a business closes and a number of workers are made redundant. But what does not happen is more jobs. They are jobs that have been lost to the Central Coast just as we have lost 63,000 jobs throughout Australia since the Abbott government came to power. Holden and Toyota are gone from Geelong. At Qantas, 5,000 jobs will be gone, as will 1,000 jobs at Rio Tinto in the Northern Territory—all these jobs have gone under the watch of the Abbott government, which is supposedly there to turn the economy around and make Australia a better place. I would argue very strongly that the only thing the Abbott government has done is create a situation where a number of Australians are living in financial hardship and with very little hope of getting a job. This situation is going to be overlaid by punitive requirements, which the Minister for Human Services has signalled, for those people who are victims—I reiterate, victims—of this government's policies. They will be punished by receiving lower payments under Newstart and by being forced to travel long distances to seek work.

A lot of noise has been made in the area of the disability support pension. The requirements to obtain that payment were tightened significantly under the previous government. A number of people who previously would have received the disability support pension and who have very little chance of finding work are now unable to access that payment. What this government is intending to do is make it a lot worse for those people. What happens to a person that physically cannot work, like the woman who came to visit me the other week who had been a machinist for 25 years? She could not use her hands. She had extreme pain in her arms and neck. She had an MRI that showed she had problems with the discs from the top of her spine to the bottom of her spine yet she was being denied access to the disability support pension. Is this the sort of society we want to live in, a society where on one hand you have very wealthy women receiving large payments for having babies—I have heard it said, the 'right' sort of women having babies—and on the other hand people who have worked hard and contributed to Australia and to our economy over a number of years being denied access to any sort of reasonable safety net payment? Those people who have worked hard and tried so hard, made enormous contributions to Australia, are now being targeted by what, I would have to say, is a very uncaring government. It makes me very sad that I represent people who look to government for leadership, look to government to be able to deliver to them, and all we are hearing from those on the other side of this House are statements justifying what they have done and the fact that they are going to cut, cut, cut. And the most vulnerable people in our society are going to be affected more than others.

Recently I was advised that the Medicare office at Charleston, which is the major shopping centre in the Lake Macquarie Newcastle area, is going to be co-located with the Centrelink office as a cost-cutting exercise. Let's not pretend it is not a cost-cutting exercise. The Centrelink office is already overworked. People who visit there are waiting very long periods of time. There are long queues. If you add to that queues of people attending the Medicare office then you are going to have even longer queues and an environment that will create anxiety among those people. Add to that the fact that the Medicare office, if it is co-located with the Centrelink office, will be in a place that has very poor parking and is hard for people to access. It is on a very busy road.

All I can say is that under this government it has been a series of cuts that are going to impact negatively on the people I represent in this parliament. Nineteen thousand people in Shorten electorate who would have received $500 a year from the government for their superannuation will now miss out. Businesses will no longer be eligible for a tax write-off because this government has reneged on the instant tax write-off for business assets costing less than $6,000 that was introduced by the previous government.

The crime prevention funds that were allocated out of the previous budget to groups in the Shortland electorate have been ripped back, clawed back, by this government—funds that were going to the Lake Macquarie PCYC and funds that were going to improve safety in Lake Haven.

This is a government, as Prime Minister Tony Abbott has flagged, that wants to curb growth in education and health spending. This is a government that is set to introduce a GP tax on people attending doctors. This is a very uncaring government. This is a government that is getting rid of the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia, while it goes ahead with paying money to people who earn a high income and are having babies. This government stands condemned for its actions—for curbing spending for those people in Australia who need it the most.

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2013-2014 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2013- 2014. Representing the electors of Hasluck, I feel it is important to talk about the appropriation bills and the importance of these for my electorate and our country.

I was listening to the member for Shortland. One of the challenges and part of the issue that we have to seriously consider is that we cannot live beyond our means; we cannot continue to increase government debt. Significant items proposed for appropriation in the bills include: just over $8.8 billion to the Department of the Treasury, for a one-off grant to the Reserve Bank of Australia to meet its request to strengthen its financial position; just over $2.5 billion for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, re-appropriating amounts previously provided to AusAID, that are required this financial year for expenditure by DFAT; just over $1.1 billion for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, particularly including amounts for offshore asylum seeker processing; and just over $540 million for the Department of Defence for overseas operations, to supplement foreign exchange movements and for the re-appropriation of amounts between the appropriation acts aligning with Defence's current work programs.

The bills include significant appropriations for Defence to deal with priority pressures that were recognised by the former Labor government in their August 2013 economic statement. This includes consolidation of Defence warehousing and fuel storage remediation by Defence to secure future efficiencies. This will have an immediate positive impact on jobs and economic activity in affected regional locations.

For six years under the Labor government, voters experienced broken promises and the infliction of unnecessary financial pain on families and businesses. I see that frequently in the electorate when I am out doorknocking or meeting with small businesses that have experienced the downturn in the economy and the lack of confidence and of spending by families, who small businesses have come to rely on as a core customer focus.

These bills will enable the Abbott government to get on with the job we promised we would do—deliver strong, stable and responsible government. The appropriation bill includes funding to enable the Department of the Treasury to make an $8.8 billion one-off grant to the Reserve Bank of Australia. In the minister's second reading speech, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, the Hon. Michael McCormack said:

First, the bill includes funding to enable the Department of the Treasury to make an $8.8 billion one-off grant to the Reserve Bank of Australia. The grant will strengthen the Reserve Bank's financial position to the level considered appropriate by the board of the Reserve Bank. This will ensure that the Reserve Bank is adequately resourced to conduct its monetary policy and foreign exchange operations in an environment of financial market volatility.

Financial stability for the Reserve Bank is important for the economic confidence of the country. Australian voters were left with years of broken promises under the Labor government of budget surpluses and failed policies. One of them was the way financial commitments were made and then altered, or the way two pieces of legislation did not realise the level of revenue stated by the Treasurer at the time. After six years of chaos, the Labor Party left the coalition and the Australian public with record debt through their financial recklessness.

I listened with great interest to the speech by the Treasurer, the Hon. Joe Hockey, on the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook 2013-14 at the National Press Club on 17 December 2013. It was a revealing speech in respect to the challenges we face and the fiscal legacy of increasing debt left by the Gillard-Rudd government. I want to quote from his address:

The Coalition went to the Australian people with a plan to get the economy and budget back on track. That is what we will do and today is the first step.

… … …

Today we reveal the full impact on the Budget and the economy of six years of Labor Government.

… … …

We have inherited from the Labor Party Budget deficits totalling $123 billion over the next four years and unless we take action the Budget will be in deficit for at least a decade.

And we have inherited from Labor gross debt that will reach $460 billion within the next four years. Unless we take very substantial budget reform, it will rise to $667 billion over the next decade.

This document also forecasts economic growth to remain below trend of 3% for the next two years as the unemployment rate continues to rise to 6¼%.

… … …

Based on new more realistic assumptions and, our determination to bring hidden budget problems out in to the open, the cumulative underlying cash balance has deteriorated by $68 billion in just four months.

Those figures are staggering when you consider the quality of life that we as Australians have become used to; we have adjusted our thinking and our planning, for our future for our children too. If those trends continued, then—as a former Labor Treasurer said because of his concern about the growing debt and challenges of the Australian economic situation—we could become a banana republic. I hope that we never head down that path. That is why the coalition are making the tough decisions required—so that we live within our means and so that what we provide for the future will be less debt, better services and better opportunities.

Many businesses in my electorate continue to feel the flow-on effects of the carbon and mining taxes. After the September election, when Australian voters emphatically rejected the Labor Party and their carbon and mining taxes, I find it inconceivable that those opposite refuse to accept the message sent at that election. It is time Labor stopped holding this government and this country back as we deliver what we said we would do—that is, that we would repeal these two taxes which are hurting families and businesses. I note the comments by the Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Greg Hunt, that the carbon tax was a $7 billion hit on the economy every year and, more recently:

… the Clean Energy Regulator has released figures detailing the carbon tax bills for all liable entities for the 2012-13 financial year.

In its first year of operation, the carbon tax was a $7.6 billion hit on the Australian economy and a direct hit on around 75,000 businesses.

He said:

16 of the 20 largest carbon tax bills have gone to electricity companies. The power sector is being hit with $4.1 billion in additional costs …

Manufacturing has been slugged $1.1 billion—and that's putting pressure on jobs …

Regional and rural Australia is being hit with dairy and meat processors, and sugar refineries copping carbon tax bills.

He continued:

Despite a $7.6 billion tax, emissions for the first 12 months barely changed by 0.1%.

It is time that the Labor Party and the Greens accepted the message from voters and the statistics in front of us and allow the government to get on with the job we were elected to do—that is, to remove these taxes.

I am looking forward to the rollout of the coalition's Green Army projects because three of these are in my electorate of Hasluck: Mary Carroll Park, Tom Bateman Reserve and Robinson Park. These three sites are an integral part of my electorate's local heritage and are significant environmental landmarks. Through the creation of the Green Army that will gradually build to a 15,000-strong environmental workforce, the coalition will create Australia's largest ever environmental deployment. It will mark the first time that Australia has approached environmental remediation with the same seriousness and level of organisation that we have long brought to bushfire preparedness and other local and regional priorities. Australia's unique landscape instils in us a deep appreciation of the fragility of the natural environment and the requirement to protect it. The Green Army complements our Direct Action approach to climate change, and Direct Action provides Australians with the opportunities for individuals, communities, organisations and companies to help address our environmental challenges. Our policy will ensure reductions in carbon emissions will take place within Australia without slugging families, businesses and the economy with a great big carbon tax.

In addition, the following funds have been provided to organisations within my electorate. Under the Community Development Grants Program, there is $8,500 to the Abruzzo Molise Italian Club. Under the Grants to Voluntary Environment, Sustainability and Heritage Organisations, there is $4,950 to the Darling Range Wildlife Shelter, the Trustee for Save the Black Cockatoo Trust Fund. Under Home and Community Care, funding was split between federal and state governments 60-40 and totalled $847,769; Gosnells Community Support Services Inc., Silver Chain Group Limited, People Who Care, Chung Wah Association and the City of Swan were all recipients and will provide tremendous local services.

I also welcome the second appropriation bill, which provides the Department of Immigration and Border Protection with almost $750 million, which includes over $400 million for the offshore processing of illegal maritime arrivals and $220 million to address the backlog of maritime arrivals. Updates by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Scott Morrison, show that the coalition's policy of a comprehensive regional deterrence framework with our neighbours to prevent asylum seekers transiting through our region in an attempt to bypass our entry processes is working. I note comments by the minister on 21 February about Operation Sovereign Borders in which he said:

Operation Sovereign Borders is making progress. The boats have not yet stopped but they are stopping under the Abbott Government with people smugglers on the back foot and arrivals down to levels not experienced since the days of the Howard Government.

…   …   …

The full suite of measures the Coalition is implementing, including operations at sea, are combining to prevent people smugglers from sending people on the dangerous boat journey to Australia. These are policies the previous government never had the resolve, will or interest in implementing.

Preventing people who arrived in Australia illegally by boat from being resettled in Australia is one thing but preventing successful people smuggling ventures to Australia entirely is another.

The commitment of $400 million for offshore processing is significant, following the issues relating to the Yongah Hill facility in Northam. Since August, there have been at least three groups who have escaped from the immigration detention centre facility. In just five months, this government has established a proven record in border protection, and the funding for offshore processing will ensure we continue the work we are doing in this important policy area.

The appropriation bills provide the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade with almost $335 million. Further, the bills propose appropriations for the Department of Industry—instead of the former Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education. This is a significant move as part of the government's commitment to cut red tape and simplify the public sector.

I support the appropriation bills. The previous, Labor government had a shopping list of disasters: debt escalation; wasted money through GroceryWatch, pink batts; and broken promises like the carbon tax and the mining tax. The people of Hasluck never expected carbon and mining taxes that would impact on the quality of their lives. Now the Labor Party is standing in the way of people who are saying, 'We do not want a carbon tax.' The appropriation bills will allow the government to continue the work we have started and the job ahead of us to restore confidence in the economy and provide security for families.

Labor trashed the economy while in government, and scrapping the carbon tax is one way Labor can undo some of the damage. It is time for Labor to get out of the way and allow the passage of the bill to repeal the carbon tax and, more importantly, ensure that, through the appropriation bills and other measures that are brought before this parliament, we give financial stability and create the opportunities and the employment pathways that will be available—as opposed to those businesses feeling the pressure of the carbon tax, with jobs being lost and jobs going offshore. I want a country that looks to the future, that values our youth and provides them with real opportunities and, equally, that allows for businesses to flourish in an economy that encourages growth and the opportunities to develop manufacturing, provides the range of services and leads to innovation, research and opportunities that realise new products, new services and new opportunities for the young people in this country.

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

May I remind the House of the nature of the amendment that we are seeking to agree to, because I note that, thus far, none of the members opposite who have spoken in this debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-14 and related bills have talked about the amendment. I know it is a general debate around appropriations, but the amendment is relevant. The amendment says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think they are relevant observations to be made about the commitments made by the Abbott government prior to the election and its statement about debt at the time of the election and post. It also notes that we have an ever-increasing debt which is largely the responsibility of decisions taken by the Abbott government.

Let's not be fooled. Whilst we understand the politics of blame and we understand the politics of them arguing legacy issues that have brought disaster on the world, the fact is that decisions directly taken by the Abbott government have led to ever-increasing debt. The truth is that there were many promises and statements made by the Abbott government and by the Prime Minister himself prior to the election which we know will be reneged upon. You will recall that on SBS News the night before the election, the Prime Minister said: 'No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or the SBS.' We already know about the mooted cuts to the ABC. As someone who has a very large regional electorate where the ABC is really the only broadcaster, the only media outlet, that actually communicates to the whole electorate, I know that the potential for cuts to the ABC and therefore the services that they are providing to regional Australia should be taken very seriously.

I wonder about the commitment made by the government on issues to do with regional Australia in any event. To me, they have not shown a great propensity to understand the importance of regional Australia or the issues engaged in regional Australia, despite the fact that they hold almost all the regional seats bar just a small number. Indeed, I am the only member of the Labor Party who holds a seat north or west of Brisbane. That is no source of great pride, I have to say, because we should be holding a lot more. When I first came to this parliament, the Labor Party held the seats of, for example, Leichhardt, Kennedy, Grey and Kalgoorlie as well as the Northern Territory. We actually held all of those large regional seats and now we hold only one of them—and that is a shame to us and we need to be concentrating our efforts on understanding why it is that those communities have rejected us in subsequent elections.

I have an issue which relates directly to northern Australia and directly to my own electorate. Mr Deputy Speaker, you may recall—you may not; you may have missed this—that on 16 January this year, the member for Leichhardt and the honourable the Deputy Prime Minister issued a joint press release in which they announced a $210 million Commonwealth package set to enhance the region's economy. Mr Truss, the Deputy Prime Minister, said at the time:

This funding commitment is great news because it will boost the economy by upgrading key roads and infrastructure to better connect areas of economic opportunity with the local communities.

Good on them: $210 million for the seat of Leichhardt!

Just cast your mind around the rest of northern Australia and ask what this government is doing for the rest of northern Australia. I ask you not just to look at it in the context of me talking about Lingiari but, most particularly, to look at what has happened at Gove and the absolute lack of action by this government to invest in the communities of north-east Arnhem Land to mitigate the impacts of the closure by Rio Tinto of their bauxite refinery. Just understand what is happening here. This announcement was made at the end of November. It meant that the Gove plant was effectively going to be put into mothballs at the end of July. This shutdown process would commence early in February, so effectively the community had two months to deal with the prospect that, on Rio's own figures, the town of Gove will go from a population of 4,000 to a population of 1,200. Spending on Gove and the region historically has been $460 million annually. That will drop to $170 million annually. This decision means that this day people are leaving Gove and the region. I said Gove had 4,000 people. There are 14,000 people in the region of north-east Arnhem Land, mostly in Aboriginal communities, who have relied on Gove as a major service centre. If you take away 2,800 people out of a community of 4,000, it has impacts on all the services that are being provided by the town and in the town. It has impacts on every small business in the place. For example, one small business with a rental bill of $11,000 a month has an income of less than $300 a day as a result of the decision.

Bear in mind that I talked about the $210 million announced for Leichhardt. Since this decision was made, there has been no effort by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the minister responsible for regional Australia or the Minister for Industry—none of them—to talk to or communicate with anyone in relation to these issues in north-east Arnhem Land. The Northern Territory CLP senator, who is a cabinet minister, Senator Scullion, has not bothered to grace the doors of people in Gove to explain why this government is prepared to spend $210 million in Leichhardt when in their time of need, when the community has been gutted and has been hit by a disaster of cyclonic proportions—man-made and devastating to jobs and services in the community—not one finger has been lifted by this government to put in place a structural adjustment package of the type that might provide the infrastructure and other job options for people into the future. That is an absolute disgrace.

We had the Prime Minister in Darwin last Friday and Saturday doing a noble thing, welcoming home Australian troops who had been fighting in Afghanistan in 2013. It was a wonderful thing and I was very proud to be part of it. He arrived in Darwin on Friday and delivered a joint statement with the Northern Territory Chief Minister about northern Australia but could not be bothered, either on the way up or on the way home, to drop into Gove and see people who want to see him. What does that tell you about our Prime Minister? What does it tell you about this government? What does it tell you about their motivation in working with people in need in this country—people who really are feeling it in such a way that they are required to uproot and leave their homes? There are no jobs, but there is nothing from this government to mitigate those decisions or try to remediate the situation.

I talked earlier about the Prime Minister's statement that there would be no cuts. Let him explain how it is that he can say, firstly, that he was on a unity ticket with Labor about the funding going into education when Labor committed $14.65 billion over six years for school funding and there is now only $2.8 billion over four years from this government. What is that if not a funding cut? The Prime Minister said before the election, 'You can vote Liberal or Labor and you'll get exactly the same amount of funding for your school.' What absolute rot!

We know also that despite providing funding of $10 million for truancy in 18 schools in the Northern Territory—a positive thing that the Commonwealth government is doing, I might say—they have done nothing to ensure that, once the kids get to school, there are sufficient teaching resources and support staff to give the kids a quality education. At the very same time the Commonwealth government is stumping up this money for truancy officers, the Northern Territory government is pulling teachers and support staff out of the schools. What does that tell you about the commitment of this government to education? It is all right for Senator Scullion, the minister who made this announcement, to say this is a matter for the Northern Territory government. You will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that under the previous Labor administration the Commonwealth government gave the Northern Territory government over $110 million for an additional 200 teachers in schools around the Northern Territory. At the very same time, the conservative CLP government of the Northern Territory cut teachers. You cannot have it both ways, and I do not accept at all that the Commonwealth government is actually committed.

We know about higher education. The mooted Higher Education Support Amendment (Savings and Other Measures) Bill, which over four years will rip out $900 million in efficiency dividends from the Commonwealth grants to universities, will have a massive impact in the Northern Territory. Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education and Charles Darwin University will lose some $900,000 over four years. This will impact directly on 2,163 students and 299 university staff studying and living in my own electorate. Based on the number of youth allowance, Abstudy and Austudy recipients living in my electorate, the abolition of the student start-up scholarship might cost some 124 students in my electorate over $100,000 in scholarships over the next four years. You can't have it both ways. How can the government, how can the Prime Minister, say there will be no cuts when we know that they have cut $1 million from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health programs for 2013-14, they have taken $5 million from the Chronic Disease Prevention and Service Improvement Fund over four years from 2013, they have taken $22.3 million over four years from the National Rural and Remote Health Infrastructure Program and they have taken $6 million from the Public Health Program in 2013-14. You just cannot believe them.

So it is all very well for members opposite to get up here and beat their breasts about how great their government is, but the fact is that this Prime Minister went to the election saying that there would be no cuts in education, no cuts in health and no cuts to the ABC, but now it is writ large that there are cuts. That is going to impact directly upon people who can least afford to have cuts made. The education outcomes for Australians and the health outcomes for Australians are of most concern to the people of my electorate, the poorest Australians in the country.

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

With International Women's Day just past I rise to speak on an issue of national significance but which may come as a disturbing surprise for many Australians. Given our tragic history in Australia, when many Indigenous families suffered long separations or the permanent loss of their children and many were restricted in their rights to live where they chose and partner whom they wished, it is deeply concerning to find that the rights and preferences of some Indigenous women who are about to give birth are not always respected, even when medical risk is minimal or can be virtually eliminated. This is about the failure of state and Northern Territory governments in particular to deal with the remote area needs of Indigenous mothers.

While most Australian women await the imminent birth of their babies comforted by the support of their partners, their mothers, other close or extended family or their friends, Aboriginal women living in remote parts of Australia cannot await a birth in those circumstances. At 36 weeks into her pregnancy, no matter what her state of health or how many healthy babies she has already delivered, the remote Indigenous woman is expected to board a bus or plane and go to await the birth somewhere near a hospital that still delivers babies. She may be accommodated in a young working men's hostel, as in Western Australia, or in a caravan park, sharing an ablutions block some distance from where her caravan is, and in the freezing cold in winter. Or she may be in a crowded dormitory. She will rarely be escorted or have a support person with her, and she will quite often have left her other children, if this is not her first birth. She will have left the significant others in her life and her other family commitments for the four or five weeks awaiting the birth. So the pregnant women must leave other children, including toddlers. You can imagine the bonding issues and confusion for a younger child when their mother reappears after four or five weeks with a brand-new baby taking up a great deal of the mother's time.

Not only has the pregnant mother had to make complex arrangements with others in her community to care for her other children, her partner is not able to support her emotionally or in any other way in her final critical weeks. He cannot attend the birth, even if that has been his or his partner's wish. The pregnant woman is also without the support of her own mother or others who in her community can give her care, especially in the final stages of her pregnancy. As Mrs Maher, one of the participants in the roundtable I will describe in a minute, said: 'Is it any wonder that they do not want to leave?'

On 30 May 2013 members of the House of Representatives Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Standing Committee decided to hold a roundtable discussion here in Parliament House where a number of the midwives and other medical service providers, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, could give us their views and share their knowledge about the issues surrounding the birth experiences of remote Aboriginal women. At least one of these women had been living in a remote settlement herself when she first gave birth, and she was forcibly relocated.

The participants at the roundtable conducted in May last year included Ms Karen Atkinson, a midwife and member of the Congress of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Nurses; Mrs Millie Hills, the project manager for the Kimberley Aboriginal Medical Services Council; Mrs Anne Maree Maher, President of the Congress of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Nurses; Mrs Rachel Sargeant, team leader, Child and Maternal Health, Apunipima Cape York Health Council; Mrs Meleseini Tai-Roche, Coordinator, Regional Maternal and Child Health, Kimberley Aboriginal Medical Services Council; and Miss Danielle Weise, community midwife and child health nurse, Apunipima Cape York Health Council. The transcript of this roundtable can be found in the official committee Hansard reports of 30 May last year. The committee secretariat has just rechecked with these participants a week or so ago to make sure that I am not reporting on something that has recently changed. I wish I was, but in fact the conditions I am about to refer to and describe have not changed. The situation is the same for these remote Indigenous women. It is a sad situation.

I quote from these midwives and the other remote area health professionals who participated. Mrs Sargeant is speaking. She begins by introducing herself. She then explains :

We look after 12 communities at Cape York. That averages about 160 births a year. We provide midwifery and child health services. All our child health nurses are midwives as well, so they will often do a dual role which is great for continuity. They are fly in, fly out. All of our registered nurses are midwives or have partnerships with specially trained maternal and child health workers who are community based. So they lead the way; it is a health worker led program that we provide, taking a lot of cultural guidance and appropriate management from there.

The committee then asked where the communities' babies were actually born. Mrs Sargeant replied:

In Cairns base [hospital]—there is no other option—at the main delivery suite at that facility … Currently there are no other options. If ladies dare not come down they are considered to be absconding and threatened with the Department of Child Safety. This is at 36 weeks—a good month before their due date, and often they may go over.

The committee chair asked what they were threatened with. Mrs Sargeant then explained:

They are threatened with the Department of Child Safety becoming involved with their management because if they do not leave their home at 36 weeks into the pregnancy they are 'deemed as not responsible'.

The chair asked for clarification—if in fact the Queensland child safety department can actually activate official interest in the still-to-be-born. Miss Weise, a midwife from the Kowanyama community of 1,100 people, answered:

It is an unborn risk notification.

Mrs Sargeant explained:

… if they do not comply with this recommended schedule and policy of management of their antenatal care and leave their community, friends and family and live down in Cairns, they are threatened with the Department of Child Safety. It depends on a lot of other circumstances, but that threat is used regularly for ladies …

Miss Weise stated:

It is not a government policy—it is just a threat. It is there and it is used.

Mrs Sargeant added:

It is standard practice.

The women who are sent to Cairns stay in a cheap hotel room if the much better 20-bed hostel at Edmonton is full, but this hostel is for Indigenous women only, so the women's partners cannot stay, nor their children. The women are paid a $33-a-night subsidy, and so finding the rest of the cost is often very problematic. Mrs Sargeant noted that, in relation to accommodation at the hostel:

This is very difficult when you have different clans in the same room and it is completely inappropriate.

Mrs Maher also reported her experience of working in rural New South Wales. She said:

I have worked also in Walgett, New South Wales, which does not seem very remote to most people but women are not allowed to birth in Walgett. They have to catch a bus at their own expense to Dubbo, which is three hours away—again, at 36 weeks. There is no accommodation supplied; they have to find their own accommodation. They have their baby at Dubbo hospital and then a day or two afterwards, because they want to come home, they get on a bus and come home.

On day 3, their milk comes in. They have got no support—no midwife—and they do not know what to do. All their mothers bottle-fed—the whole generation of mothers before—so not only is it about where you birth, it is about the support you get before and after. There were seven midwives from Canberra who would fly in fly out to Walgett. Walgett is not remote, but they could not get anyone to work there.

Mrs Tai-Roche works in remote East Kimberley. She reported:

Mine are very, very similar issues.

In her words:

The birth journey for Kimberley women varies depending on where they are geographically … What it looks like for really remote communities and particularly for East Kimberley women, is a Greyhound bus—usually a mail plane and a Greyhound bus—at 36 to 38 weeks.

And she said that journey:

… can take two days in and out … women are out—

of hospital—

… two to three days post birth and back onto a Greyhound bus.

Unless the woman is under 18 or particularly unwell or is high risk, there is typically no funding for an escort to accompany her on the bus or plane journey, or to stay with her while she awaits the birth.

Obviously, all women need a safe place to give birth, with appropriate facilities and expert care should there be an emergency, and many remote Indigenous women and their babies do need special medical care, given the state of their health; that is widely and broadly acknowledged. However, we are concerned that, for these women, there are no options even when their state of health is fine, when there are other options and when they have previously had healthy babies.

Ms Atkinson gave examples of the practice in Flinders Medical Centre where pregnant women with rheumatic fever heart disease go to give birth. She stated:

Flinders Medical Centre will not accept a client that is retrieved without an escort, so they all have to have an escort.

She felt that that was a very appropriate thing to do, and of course we would all agree, but she went on to say:

The main thing with ladies … from the Top End is that they would arrive with next to nothing and it is freezing … They have no money, they have got no Medicare card … They might have their Basics Card with them, which is totally useless in Adelaide because there is only Target in the city and all the Caltex servos that take that Basics Card …

Mrs Sargeant told the committee about the close relationship that develops between midwives and health workers and the pregnant women in remote communities. However:

When the ladies get flown out at 36 weeks, they get put into a system which is so different …

No-one might speak their language. They are in:

… a hospitalised, once a week, ante-natal, really busy clinic, where they do not know the midwife and they will see somebody different every time they go who may not be aware of the often very complex social situations and family situations that the midwives and health workers looking after them in the communities are very aware of and can manage their care around. Again, it is a very daunting experience.

Following that roundtable discussion, we in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs put together some targeted recommendations to the Commonwealth government. I want to refer to these now because I think this is a very significant issue. It is one we must deal with urgently and it is one that the states and territories are not dealing with as they should.

The recommendations are: the Commonwealth recognise as distressing and damaging the practice of requiring that Indigenous women in remote areas with normal pregnancies relocate alone to an urban area near a hospital weeks before the birth; the Commonwealth works with states and territories to change this policy of mandated removal by providing greater support and resourcing for the provision of more child health nurses and midwives in remote Indigenous communities; the Commonwealth support improved access to safe and appropriate accommodation for Indigenous mothers and their families if they must be away from their home communities to give birth, including providing for their other children and partners; the Commonwealth provide more culturally appropriate support for mothers if they must be away from their home communities to give birth, including a skilled case manager who can communicate in the mother's language and maintain contact after the birth; the Commonwealth ensure there are resources to improve breastfeeding support for Indigenous mothers, given that women in remote areas are frequently discharged from the hospital before their breastfeeding is established; appropriate and safe transport should be provided to women and their babies who have to leave or return to their home country; and the Commonwealth work with the states and territories to introduce an acknowledgement of a child's home country on all Indigenous children's birth certificates when the mother would normally reside in the home country but has needed to leave to give birth. This last is obviously a very important matter for Indigenous children when later in their lives they want to register for or prove their traditional ownership status in relation to certain country. I want to stress that these are recommendations from the committee and have no status other than as recommendations, but we have passed them to the minister and I know he will consider them. We have also asked the minister to discuss them with the appropriate state and territory ministers who have responsibility in this area.

Finally, I want to say that, if anyone is in any doubt about the history of women being separated from their babies in the Australian Indigenous community, I want to refer them to 1913, 23 July, and the South Australian parliamentary proceedings and the progress report of a royal commission on the Aborigines in Australia. This is from a documentary history that I compiled in the 1970s. This parliamentary proceeding talks about removing children—in particular, half-caste children—from their mothers.

The Hon. J Jelley asks Mr EC Stirling, 'What would be a suitable age to remove them?'—meaning the children—and the answer is:

I think when they are about 2 or 3 years of age.

The chairman says:

You would not recommend that they be taken away when they are absolute infants ?—No ; because then you would have the burden of them that all children are at such a young age. When they are a couple of years of age they do not require so much attention and they are young enough to be attractive.

And he says:

Do you think that their experience of two years with the black mother would seriously interfere with them ?

Mr Stirling's answer is:

No. There would not be time for them to establish habits and customs. I am quite aware that you are depriving the mothers of their children, and the mothers are very fond of their children; but I think it must be the rising generation who have to be considered. They are people who are going to live on.

I want to say that we have not come much further from sentiments like that in parliament if we are still having women with perfectly normal pregnancies forced to leave their home country, away from their partners, their mothers, their sisters and their other children, at 36 weeks into their pregnancies. They then have to spend the next four to six weeks in totally alien and, to them, often hostile surroundings. It is not good enough in 21st century Australia. We need to do much better. So I urgently commend those recommendations we made to the minister, and I hope they will receive state and territory support.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to provide an update to the House on the Morwell mine fire, near the Hazelwood power station, which has attracted a lot of media attention in recent times. The fire continues to cause concern for a large number of residents in the Morwell region and the broader Latrobe Valley, residents who have been affected by both smoke and ash for more than three weeks now. There are some people who are angry. They are frustrated and concerned about the delays in suppressing the fire and the potential impact on their health and the wider community. It is human nature for some people to be anxious and upset in what is a very difficult situation.

I mentioned at the outset the media attention. I would like to appeal to the visiting media, primarily the metropolitan media, to be sensitive to our local community at this time. It is a very stressful time, and it has been going for more than three weeks. My local media—the ABC, 3TR, Latrobe Valley Express and WIN TV—have all acted very responsibly in highlighting the emergency warnings during the original outbreak and also have sought to raise legitimate concerns when they have come to light, but I think some of the metropolitan coverage has left a bit to be desired. I just urge those attending from out of town to make sure that they try to give some balance to the arguments, to reflect the community's views but also the enormous effort which is underway to overcome these very difficult issues. I accept that it is a very genuine news story, and I have no problem whatsoever with journalists and camera crews travelling to the Latrobe Valley to cover this event. I just urge them to be as balanced as they possibly can and not to fall for some of the extreme views which are being expressed by people with a hidden agenda who are also visiting our region.

On that point: the influx of people with political issues to push during this event is something that disgusts me. We have these camera-seeking activists and politicians who would not have been able to find Morwell on a map three weeks ago, and they are now beating a path to our community. I would like to take this opportunity to warn Gippsland and Latrobe Valley residents, in particular the Morwell and district community, that not all is what it seems with some of these visitors to our town. They are not acting in Morwell's best interests.

I would like to refer specifically to the Greens new-found interest in Morwell. Last weekend we had Senator Di Natale in the region expressing his concern for the health of residents, and I take that at face value. We have had the Victorian leader, Greg Barber, demanding that a state of emergency be declared. But what concerns me is that there seems to be a pattern of behaviour here where the Greens are trying to profit politically from the misery of others in the Latrobe Valley.

Everyone knows what the Greens true agenda is because it is published on their own website. I refer this evening to the website of the Greens and to this document in relation to the Hazelwood power station, which this fire is burning alongside. This document—for want of a better word, we will call it a poster—in reference to Hazelwood power station, is headlined 'Hazelwood horror': It says:

It's evil! It's toxic! 2005's most polluting power station in the industrial world! … what can I do?

It says:

It's dirty and unnecessary and it's time for it to go.

This is what the Greens are putting out. This is the propaganda they are putting out:

The best time to close Hazelwood was yesterday but the next best time is today.

'Take urgent action now to help us replace Hazelwood.'

I say to the Greens: how can you pretend to care for my community when your real plan is actually to take their jobs away? If you shut down Hazelwood power station and 500 jobs go tomorrow, what would that do to the health of the people in the Latrobe Valley and the broader Gippsland community?

The vast majority of my community has already seen through the holiness of the Greens and their antijobs agenda. In the last federal election, I think they returned a primary vote in the order of six per cent, so I suppose there is some concession for the Greens. They did beat the Palmer United Party, but that is about the only one they beat in the election campaign. I urge people in my communities to be very careful when they assess the comments being made by people who have just visited our region for the specific purpose of achieving a headline or getting their face in front of a camera.

Deputy Speaker Mitchell, as you would be well aware from your own electorate, fighting fires like this is primarily a state responsibility. The state agencies are on the ground and are both responding to the fire event and trying to meet the needs of the community more generally. I would like to take this opportunity—as I am sure you have in your own electorate, Deputy Speaker—to thank the volunteers particularly from the CFA but also from the Red Cross, the State Emergency Service and the whole range, the whole gamut, of community volunteer groups that make up our wonderful regional communities. They have been simply sensational in a very difficult time, so I particularly want to thank the volunteers for the work they have done.

More broadly, I want to thank the emergency service workers, the professional workers, in the sense of our fire and police personnel and our ambulance personnel but also the mineworkers, the mine firefighters, who have been very much at the forefront of this event in trying to suppress this fire, which, as I said, has been going for more than three weeks now. The health officials as well have been very busy. They have been extraordinary in their diligence in making sure that they are on hand to try and reassure residents, and they have been working long hours in these very difficult circumstances. And the much-maligned group that does not get much praise from communities is our local council workers. The council workers in the Latrobe Valley have had experience in dealing with tragedies in recent times. They are very good at responding to natural disasters, and they have been on the ground in numbers again helping our community.

Disturbingly, we believe that the fire that ignited the blaze in the Morwell mine was actually deliberately lit outside the mine. The Victoria Police have advised the public in recent days that the fire is believed to have started at a site on the Strzelecki Highway which is located between Morwell and Mirboo North on 9 February at about 1.30 pm. An arson chemist has inspected the site, and police are treating the fire as suspicious. They are appealing for public information. The details are quite specific: somewhere around 1.30 pm on 9 February during that appallingly hot day with difficult conditions and strong winds, the worst time to light a fire, it is believed that an arsonist was at work. It sickens all right-thinking people in our community to know that there is someone out there who has shown no regard whatsoever for life and property, has lit this fire and has caused the damage that it has caused. I appeal to anyone with information to contact their local police or Crime Stoppers and report that information.

I have told the House previously that the key issues as I see them in relation to the Morwell mine fire are threefold. Our No. 1 priority right now is to suppress the fire, and work is going on in that regard. We need to keep on caring for the health of the community, and then we need to deal with those longer-term issues of preventing a recurrence of the fire. I note that the state government Deputy Premier announced on the weekend that an inquiry will be held once the fire situation is controlled. I think that is a good thing; it is a wise thing. We need to learn from any mistakes which may have made in the past and take steps to prevent such an incident occurring in the future. Last week I raised the issue about the site where the fire has occurred—it is in a disused part of the mine. I raised the issue of whether it had been fully rehabilitated; keep in mind, this was 30 years ago. It was back in the old days of the SEC. Whether it was properly rehabilitated or not is one thing that will need to be fully explored as part of the inquiry process.

It is fair to say that at various times over the past three weeks people in the Morwell community have contacted my office and expressed their concern and their frustration, and that they have felt neglected. This event has impacted on them for so long. I would like to assure them that a great deal has been happening. It may not have always been obvious to them, but a great deal has been happening both behind the scenes and on the fire suppression front.

In relation to suppressing the fire, I get regular updates from the Hazelwood mine and also from the CFA. I understand there has been some very good progress made over the past few days and that fire activity in the mine has significantly reduced. That is a good thing. Obviously, when the fire activity is reduced the smoke that is generated by the fire is also reduced. Hopefully, if the prevailing wind conditions do not push the smoke towards the Morwell South community, there will be some relief for the local community. It is worrying that tomorrow, Tuesday, could be a challenging time for the firefighters. I understand that additional CFA strike teams have been brought into the region specifically in anticipation of the risk that fires may escape from the mine as they did last week. The intention is to have those strike teams respond to anything that occurs in that sense so that resources do not have to be diverted away from the main firefight, which is within the mine itself.

The strategy being used quite successfully along the coal bed is that an aviation fire tender that carries 9,000 litres of water and using an onboard nozzle, which actually seeks to penetrate the coal, drives through and cools an area. Then we have the compressed air foam units: the aerial trucks apply foam to soak into the fire for a few hours before the crews use thermal-imaging cameras to help extinguish the remaining hotspots. It is a pretty high-tech firefight. It is difficult to suppress coal fires—everyone is aware of that. It is heartening that progress is being made, but it is worrying that we are still looking at many more days of this fire continuing. We are in the lap of the gods, to some extent, in relation to the weather conditions and whether they assist the firefighters or act as a hindrance, as we fear they may tomorrow.

While this ongoing firefight is continuing within the Morwell mine itself we have, at the same time, a recovery operation underway. This is making things even more difficult for the state government agencies. In the nearby community, particularly the most impacted area of Morwell South, there is a whole range of activities underway in terms of trying to help the residents in that part of the region. There is a community respite centre in place which has been opened at the Moe town hall. It is providing local residents with access to information on the government services that are available to them, some general health information, and temporary respite from the smoky conditions. People are being invited to seek temporary respite in Moe, which is a township only 10 or 15 kilometres away. I thank the people of Moe for the support they are showing to their neighbours in Morwell. In addition to that, for residents who are concerned about the health impacts or potential health impacts of the fire, there is a community health assessment centre. It is located in Morwell itself at the Ambulance Victoria Gippsland regional office, which is adjacent to the Mid Valley Shopping Centre, and is providing basic primary health assessments to local residents. The centre was first opened on 21 February and expanded on 27 February. It has been providing an outstanding service. I visited there last Sunday and met some of the paramedics and health department staff who were there. They are providing primary health assessments such as blood pressure, heart rate, temperature and basic respiratory checks, such as chest sounds and respiratory rate, to reassure people that they are not at risk or to encourage them to seek further advice—either through their local doctor or the hospital if that is required. In addition to the respite centre and the health assessment centre, there is a community information recovery centre, which is in operation in Hazelwood Road in Morwell. There is a wide range of services there, from Latrobe City Council through to the Department of Human Services; the Red Cross; the Victorian Council of Churches; Ambulance Victoria; and EPA Victoria and the fire services themselves. This was established by the Department of Human Services in conjunction with Latrobe City Council.

For those residents who are having trouble breathing there are dust masks available for community members from Latrobe City Council headquarters in Morwell, at the Morwell library and at Morwell leisure centre. I understand that V/Line has been offering to help people travel out of the region by providing a free service for Morwell residents travelling to Melbourne; return services from there are on offer as well. Morwell residents wishing to take up that free travel offer can get in contact with V/line through their friendly staff at the local Morwell station. That is a good thing to see as well.

The community support has been outstanding. We have had groups like Scouts Victoria, which has offered hundreds of beds at scout camps across Victoria to the Morwell families who are choosing to take a break away from the smoke. Free accommodation has been made available at these popular campsites over the Labour Day long weekend as well, which will help some of the Morwell families and groups who are seeking a few nights in a different environment. I would encourage anyone who does choose to relocate to make sure they contact the Red Cross and register their intended location to help the authorities keep track of where people have moved to.

I would like to reassure residents that I have spoken to Victoria Police and been told that additional police patrols have been made available to keep an eye on their properties if they do relocate. As we know, on these occasions sometimes there are others who seek to profit from misery and cause mischief, for want of a better phrase. I am reassured Victoria Police is on top of that issue as well.

As members would expect, if this is going on there is a need for financial assistance to help people who may not have the capacity themselves to relocate. I can report that the federal government has supported the Victorian government at all times during what has been a very traumatic event. I have personally provided updates to the Prime Minister and the justice minister, who I know has also received regular updates and briefings from Victorian emergency services Minister Kim Wells. In Morwell on Friday we had the Premier, the Deputy Premier and health minister making an announcement that the Chief Health Officer had recommended some at-risk people relocate on a voluntary basis. The temporary relocation is encouraged for people who: are aged over 65; have preschool aged children; are pregnant; or have a pre-existing heart or lung condition, living or working in the Morwell South area or south of the railway line. The full advice on the temporary relocation is available through the Department of Human Services.

To assist people with that, the federal government is supporting the Victorian government with the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements. Under that, category D assistance provides for voluntary relocation payments of up to $1,250 per week per eligible household, to allow vulnerable residents living in that part of the fire affected area to temporarily relocate away from the smoke. The cost of this package will be shared by the Commonwealth and the state, as is the normal practice under the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements.

The state government has also recognised that there is significant risk of damage to the reputation of Morwell and the Latrobe Valley more generally, and there is a concern that jobs may be at risk in the future. I understand the Victorian Premier has announced a $2 million fund to provide assistance directly to businesses affected by the Hazelwood fire. Their additional support measures will also include specialised coaching and advice for small business owners.

I close by simply saying this is a very difficult time for the people of Morwell and the Latrobe Valley and surrounding communities. I have been working with my state colleague the member for Morwell, Russell Northe, my federal neighbour Russell Broadbent and the local council, and I am confident that the response and recovery effort is on track. I am reassured by the state government that everything that is able to be done is being done and resources are being applied where required. Mr Northe in particular has worked tirelessly since the fire started and is doing everything in his power to assist his community. I wish the Morwell and district community all the best in the coming days and can assure them that both the state and Commonwealth government will assist them wherever possible.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, it is good to see you back in the chamber. I know full well that you know the hardship that is going on in the seat of McEwen with the recent fires. I know the thoughts and prayers of the people from my electorate are going out to that electorate.

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

Thanks, mate.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today, in the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014 and the cognate bills, I would like to raise some of the economic underpinnings in the budget and also the effects the bills will have in my electorate of Wright. I would like to speak to three points. Firstly, I would like to outline some of the new packages—in particular, the drought package. I will then go to the economy that we inherited as a government when we came into office. Finally, I will outline the coalition's plans to turn the situation around.

The drought relief package was welcome. It builds on the Labor reforms with reference to the abolishment of exceptional circumstances boundaries in drought affected areas. Under the old scheme, to be considered for drought relief, one first had to meet the approval mechanisms of exceptional circumstances, including being within certain boundaries. Unfortunately, Mother Nature is not that precise when she drops her rainfall. She will drop rain anywhere that she feels is appropriate. Historically, we had circumstances where a farmer in a drought declared area had successfully had three crops in a row while their next-door neighbour, not in a drought declared area, had suffered horrendous drought conditions. In this drought package we make sure that we catch those people and they are not left behind as a consequence of the drought. We assess applications on a needs basis, irrespective of whether or not someone falls within a defined area. That will make an enormous difference to the welfare and livelihood of those affected severely by drought conditions.

In Queensland, that drought package will be administered by the QRAA, the Queensland Rural Adjustment Authority. Each state will have its own state body to administer the funds. I commend the QRAA for what they have done to date in administering the package. I encourage states to constantly review the guidelines so that we do not have too many people falling through the cracks, not being able to qualify for assistance because they do not meet the requirements in paragraph 3(a) on page 52. The guidelines must be constantly amended so that we do not leave people behind, we preserve their livelihoods and we preserve, in many cases, many generations of investment.

I would like to talk about the economy that we inherited and, in particular, remind the Australian public and the people of Wright that Labor inherited a $20 billion cash surplus but left a deficit of no less than $30 billion. In addition to that, an enormous amount of money, roughly $8 billion, was—and I will use the word lightly—raped from the Reserve Bank. Those cash reserves from the Reserve Bank need to be replenished. Labor turned nearly $50 billion in the bank into net debt well over $200 billion. The mind boggles as to how quickly that happened. In fact, I think it was the fastest deterioration of debt in dollar terms and as share of GDP in modern Australian history. That is quite a feat. A professor out of Harvard University—previously an economist with the IMF, the International Monetary Fund—Professor Ken Rogoff, wrote a report some time back, in which he stated that Australia's debt was the fastest-growing debt in the OECD. Labor's debt is already costing $10 billion a year in net interest payments. I will break that down, because it is so easy for a million or a billion to roll off the tongue, and it is hard for anyone to comprehend that amount of money. If you work it back to a fiscal basis, it works out to just under $500,000 every hour. So, in the time it takes for a few speakers to speak here tonight, we will have racked up another half a million dollars worth of interest on our debt bill. The fastest-rising, single line item on the balance sheet of Labor's budget was interest. That is a remarkable achievement. As a consequence, it is the future generations of this nation, the future generations of my electorate, who will be burdened with that debt.

Under Labor, the jobless queue grew by over 200,000 compared with a decline of approximately 250 under the former Howard government. Those on the other side of the House say that during their term of government they raised a million jobs. They forget to mention the jobs that were lost. A million jobs were created during their term—that figure is accurate—but jobs growth was zero in 2011. That means that for every job created, another job was lost. You will hear the Australian Labor Party say in this House that, since the Abbott government has been in power, one job has been lost every four minutes. The way they calculated that number is the reason they are not in government anymore—they have trouble with numbers. That is not the jobs lost to date; it is the forecast job losses into the future, as far out as 2017. The other side of this House will say that those are the jobs lost to date.

Again, those sorts of calculations and their inability with numbers are why the Labor side of the House has the lowest representation in the federal parliament since Federation. To put that into perspective for those who will read the Hansard or are listening, this chamber is horseshoe shaped and Labor fill just the first section of chairs on their side. It has been many years since that has been the case. But that is one of the great things about democracy—ultimately, the Australian people hold the power and they said overwhelmingly that they had had enough of the mismanagement, the abuse of power and the relationships between Labor and the union movement. They voiced their opinions and voted at the last election, and the Australian people had their say.

Labor's legacy is 200,000 more unemployed and a gross debt that is projected to be $667 billion. When you look at Labor's forecast in MYEFO, work out their accumulated deficits into the future and add up what their expenditure was going to be, you will find it would be no less than $667 billion, with $123 billion in accumulated deficits. What one could do with $123 billion—the mind boggles. They also had oversight of more than 50,000 illegal boat arrivals and the world's biggest carbon tax.

In the time remaining, I want to turn to the illegal boat arrivals. We saw the clips on the television when the former Labor government wound back the Pacific solution. When that bill passed, we saw them high-fiving and cheering. At that time, I think we had no less than four in detention.

Mr Irons interjecting—

That is right, member for Swan, they were kissing and hugging in the chamber because they had won the vote to wind back the Pacific solution. But there was no high-fiving and rejoicing every time a life was lost at sea. There was none of that, because they knew quite well that they were pandering to the factionalism within the ALP—factionalism, something one could do a master's degree on and still not completely understand how the personalities revolve around each other.

On asylum seekers, in the last 70-odd days there has not been one boat arrival in Australian waters. That is because we made an election commitment that we were going to make a difference on illegal boat arrivals and turn the economy around—turn domestic confidence around and turn the deficit to surplus. We are so lucky that the Australian economy is resilient. I have some stats here that I will quickly run through. The resilience of this nation will allow us to, hopefully, bring the government to fiscal credibility.

From an economic perspective, Australia is ranked No. 1 in terms of the high proportion of the population with net worth above US$100,000. Australia has the world's 12th highest GDP and fifth highest GDP per capita. Australia has the third largest pool of investment funds under management. Australia is ranked third for economic freedom—and that is from the Index of Economic Freedom. Australia is ranked fourth for the number of new businesses in the world. Australia is ranked fifth on the financial development index. The Australian dollar is the fifth most traded currency—having such a small economy and only 22 million people that is a bizarre statistic; I suspect that is due to the strength of the Australian economy. The Australian Stock Exchange is the world's 10th largest by market capitalisation. With reference to trade, Australia is the No. 1 global exporter of coal, iron ore, aluminium ores and zinc. Australia is the No. 1 global exporter of beef and chick peas. Australia is the No. 2 global exporter of lentils and sugar. Australia is the fourth largest exporter of LNG as of 2012. Australia is the sixth largest exporter of gold as of 2012 and it is the seventh largest exporter of silver.

With reference to education, Australia has the fourth highest number of international students, after the United States of America, the United Kingdom and France. Australia is ranked fifth in the number of universities in the world's top 100.

Australia ranks No. 2 on the UN's Human Development Index after Norway. Australia has the fifth highest life expectancy—the source of that, as of 2011, was the World Bank. Australia has the eighth highest international tourism spend from overseas visitors.

While I come to this place to share the poor record of Labor, I can say that as a nation we are truly resilient. The people in my electorate, Wright—who have seen flood, drought and the high Australian dollar, which has had an enormous impact on their exports—are truly resilient. Under the coalition government, we will return this country and this economy to surplus in the future. We will do it because we are disciplined. We have shown that discipline to be accurate and right when it comes to border security. We will continue that same discipline in the fiscal and economic sectors, in conjunction with our small business partners. Small- and medium-sized enterprises, corporates, mums and dads—everyone who puts their shoulder to the wheel will do so knowing that a coalition government in this country will make a difference.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to this debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014,Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2013-2014 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014. It is always good to follow the member for Wright. Like me—and I see the member for Forde in the chamber as well—the member for Wright ran a business prior to coming to this place. We, along with the coalition, understand about fiscal responsibility and making sure that the bills are paid based on what is coming in the door as well as what is going out of the door, something the previous government failed to recognise in their six years. I note that these are the first appropriation bills of the Abbott government and I am encouraged by the tone that these bills set for the coalition government.

The b ills include measures in four specific areas—economic management, foreign affairs, im migration and border protection, and d efence . T he se bills take positive steps towards providing sound financial management with respect to the Reserve Bank of Australia, good organisation al management with the streamlining of the Public Service , strong border protection with a plan to stop the boats and a focus and priority on d efence.

This is a far cry from the priorities and policies of the former Labor g overnment, whose appropriation b ills were littered with profligate and wasteful spending.

We all remember the carbon tax kitchen, the study on ergonomic design s of desk chairs and the set- top box rip-offs under the previous government—not to mention the pink batts. Page after page of the budget papers were full of these wasteful items of expenditure which added up to the biggest deficits in Australia's history. The most frustrating part for the coalition and for the Australian people is that the Labor Party still just do not get it when it comes to budget and waste. They do not understand how wasteful spending is directly related to budget deficits.

I recall, during the recent debate on the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Repeal Bill 2013, the member for Fraser stating that he just could not understand why the government was going to the trouble of repealing legislation to save only $250,000. The member for Fraser said 'only $250,000'. It is this frame of mind, this mode of thinking from the Labor Party, that created the financial disaster of the last government. I am sure there are other members in this place who know that most of the people in their electorate would think that $250,000 is a damn lot of money and would love to have that sort of money fall into their letterbox. To the member for Fraser and to all members opposite I say that eliminating $250,000 of waste is a good start, and I can assure members opposite that it will be only the start of this government's effort in the massive task that lies ahead of restoring the budget and the financial position of this country.

With the serious financial position the country was left in just a few short months ago by Labor, it is difficult to even imagine that just a year or two ago Treasurer Swan was suggesting that there was going to be a surplus in the 2012-13 financial year. I remember being in the House on budget night on 8 May 2012. I remember the disbelief of members on our side of the House when the Treasurer claimed that he had delivered the surplus 'as promised', when there was nothing in his speech to indicate the structural repair to the budget necessary for a surplus. But the Treasurer's plan was not for a real surplus; it was a plan for a paper surplus, a one-off surplus before the election to parade before the voters. That was the Treasurer's plan. I cannot remember how many times he promised he was going to deliver a surplus but I wish I had a dollar for every time he promised it.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was well over 500.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Forde says it was over 500 times.

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

He is being helpful!

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the member for Rankin saying that members on this side are being helpful about this serious issue. The Treasurer had a series of paper-shuffling exercises to bring spending out of and revenue into the 2012-13 financial year. It was a fraud on the voters, but ultimately a fraud that did not succeed. To the credit of the then shadow Treasurer Hockey, he called it instantly when he said that the Labor government would never deliver a surplus. He was of course emphatically correct, but he had a lot of history to follow because Labor had not delivered a surplus since 1989.

The short-term economic mismanagement by the former Treasurer has had long-term consequences, which the coalition is today dealing with in these bills. As part of an attempt to get the artificial surplus in 2012-13, the Labor government raided the Reserve Bank fund to the tune of $500 million. The Treasurer had already taken out $5.23 billion in one year alone, 2009-10, so there was not much more to take out; but still he proceeded in depleting the Reserve Bank's reserves to unacceptable levels. Following the $5.2 billion raid the then Treasurer, Mr Swan, gave his in-principle agreement to a concerned RBA that all future profits be paid into its reserve fund until it reached its targeted level, before any further dividends were paid to the Commonwealth. But then, in August 2012, against the advice of the Reserve Bank and counter to his commitment, Treasurer Swan determined that nearly 50 per cent of the bank's total earnings in 2011-12—$500 million—would be credited to the Commonwealth as a dividend. We know that the Reserve Bank was not happy about that. We know this because in an article on the ABC website—and I do not like to quote the ABC but will on this—dated 25 October 2013 and entitled 'Ex-Reserve Bank board member Warwick McKibbin accuses Wayne Swan of economic vandalism', Mr McKibbin is quoted as saying:

Because when I was on the board 2011—I finished July 2011—we made a very large loss because of the very high Australian dollar. The following year after I'd left, there was a small profit of over $1 billion. The treasurer was requested not to extract that from the balance sheet of the bank. He ignored that request and took $500 million so that he could reach the budget surplus in 2012-13. That to me is economic vandalism. It wasn't that he may not have been asked to put more money in, but he was certainly asked not to take money out.

The Reserve Bank needs a significant reserve. Reserves are required as an insurance policy—providing capacity to mitigate the effects of adverse economic and financial stocks, for example, by intervening in the foreign exchange market. And it is this fact in particular which starkly exposes the Treasurer who spoke so much about the global financial crisis. Day after day he congratulated himself in this place on dealing with it, but in actual fact his actions weakened the capacity of not only the national government but the Reserve Bank to respond to a financial crisis. Holding significant reserves is important for implementing the RBA's monetary policy decisions and for managing the day-to-day foreign currency requirements of the Australian government; it is important in domestic liquidity management operations. Glenn Stevens and the board have nominated 15 per cent of the asset at risk as the appropriate level of the reserve fund and we support that. Our institutions must be at their absolute strongest to deal with the challenges in the days, weeks and months ahead, and the coalition government will not allow our institutions to be in any way weakened.

The bill also provides just over $2.5 billion for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade as a means of re-appropriating amounts previously provided to the former AusAID agency that are required this financial year for expenditure by DFAT. This relates to a decision of the coalition government to integrate AusAID with DFAT in order to achieve a better alignment of Australia's foreign, trade and aid policies and programs. The coalition government, with its focus on eliminating any waste and duplication in the public service, has taken a number of decisions relating to departmental restructure since being elected in September. A number of superfluous groups have been discontinued and departmental structures simplified and centralised. In this spirit, AusAID has been brought into the Department of Foreign Affairs under the supervision of the honourable Minister Julie Bishop MP. The government recognises that an effective and high quality aid program is fundamental to advancing Australia's national interests and integration will ensure that the aid program promotes Australia's interests through contributing to economic growth and poverty reduction. The aid program's geographic priority will be the Indo-Pacific region and it is indeed a welcome development to have a bit of a focus on results back in the foreign affairs portfolio. After years of haphazard funding at great public expense in pursuit of votes to fulfil Kevin Rudd's dream of a temporary place on the Security Council, we finally have a focused foreign aid program more clearly in the interests of the region and in our own national interest. As the foreign minister said on 14 February at the opening address of the 2014 Australasian Aid and International Development Policy workshop:

It is in Australia's national interest for there to be peace and prosperity in our region—it is part of our national interest. So that is why we are consolidating our efforts on our neighbourhood—the Indian Ocean Asia Pacific—where we can make the biggest difference. This is where we have a responsibility to foster peace and prosperity.

I note from reading the full transcript of this address that there may still be a hangover in the media from the Kevin Rudd era of largesse. The foreign minister said:

Now I know from a report on the ABC last night that apparently my priorities are wrong because I am not funding the reconstruction of the Grenada Parliament House in the Caribbean. According to the ABC I have got my priorities wrong. The previous government, in order to buy the vote of the Grenadian Government for the Security Council seat and believe me I support us being on the Security Council, promised to rebuild their Parliament House—committed $3.5 million to do it, a million dollars has already gone. The Grenadian Government actually campaigned at the last election on the basis that they would not put a dollar into the building of their parliament house because the Australian Government and others would do it.

I think that says it all with respect to the previous government's attitude to foreign aid. Given Grenada is among the high human development countries in the world, we might be better directing our aid at our region. Papua New Guinea, for example, is number 156 on the HDI rankings. Grenada's parliament house will not be a focus of our aid money.

I am sure that this government's more focused approach will also please those in my electorate of Swan with a particular interest in this topic. This includes the congregation of Star Street Uniting Church in Carlisle who wrote to me on foreign aid. I was pleased to be able to invite members of the congregation for a meeting at my office on 18 February. The Reverend Gordon Scantlebury ably spoke about the passion of his congregation on this matter and I was pleased to be able to update him on the coalition's priorities. I thank the Reverend for taking the time to attend the office.

I support the measures related to AusAID in this bill. The bills also include just over $1.1 billion for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, particularly including amounts for offshore asylum seeker processing. On this subject the will of the people could not be clearer. The government was elected on a clear mandate to implement Operation Sovereign Borders and stop the boats. The people of Australia could not have been clearer, at the election, that they supported the government's policies to stop the boats. The government is stopping the boats and ending the drownings at sea. Over 1,000 deaths at sea—that we know about—occurred after the previous government dismantled the Howard government's proven border protection measures. It has been said that this is the most deaths resulting from a government policy since World War II. And the minister for immigration, through the measures included in Operation Sovereign Borders, has stopped the drownings and restored order to our borders so that genuine refugees can be taken in future from the refugee camps around the world. Yet the response of the opposition is to castigate the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and to accuse Lieutenant General Angus Campbell of a political cover-up in the Senate through the opposition Defence spokesman, Steven Conroy—quite disgraceful. I support the appropriations measures on border protection in these bills, which will continue to allow the minister to deliver on the coalition's election commitment to stop the boats.

The fourth element of these bills is just over $540 million for the Department of Defence for overseas operations, to supplement foreign exchange movements and for the re-appropriation of amounts between the appropriation acts aligning with Defence's current work programs. I note Defence's no win, no loss arrangement with the government on foreign exchange fluctuations. I also note the budget measures and other budget adjustments for the Defence portfolio from the additional estimates statement and the importance of activities in relation to Operation Sovereign Borders and Operation Slipper.

In the short time I have left I note that the Minister for Defence is a minister for Western Australia. His office is in my electorate and he, along with our other Senate team, will be facing the electors on 5 April. The member for Forrest and I will be along, supporting our senators, and will have them re-elected back into this place to help implement the government's policies and promises we made at the last election. I commend the bills to the House.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is an enduring theme in the speeches from this side of the House, and that is basically around the Rudd and Gillard governments' legacy of debt and deficit. That is something that nobody can get away from. It does not matter which way you spin it or which way you twist it or turn it; we have seen a series of budget mismanagements and budget deficits and what unfortunately has become intergenerational fiscal debt. We are told that gross debt will peak at over $667 billion thanks to the $123 billion in accumulated deficits. We have seen a projected deficit ahead of us of $47 billion.

The one thing that the Labor Party could not achieve in government was that very elusive budget surplus. They talked about it but they never actually delivered it. They claimed they delivered it, but they never did.

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

They said 2016-17.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is exactly right. In addition to that, the one thing with all of these figures that hit me over and over again was that the Labor Party when in government provided absolutely no credible path back to surplus at all. It was just on a wing and a prayer and a maybe: 'We will put it out in a pamphlet but it won't actually happen.' This is the legacy of the Gillard and Rudd Labor governments, and no amount of spin, no matter who is telling the story, can or will erase the impact of that debt legacy on future generations of Australians.

I will touch on one of the early effective policies—that is, of course, Operation Sovereign Borders. We know that the measures put in place by this government have seen a complete change in the people smugglers' business model. I am sure this was something they had hoped would not happen, but it has; and that has resulted in, as we know, at least 70 days of no arrivals. But I think to the people in this place, as we have heard previously, the most important thing is that there are no more deaths at sea. That is one of the biggest issues in this debate. I, like my colleagues before me, thought the comments by Senator Conroy, the shadow minister, to Lieutenant General Angus Campbell were absolutely disgraceful. There is no other way to describe that than 'disgraceful'.

There has been a lot said about the carbon tax. I would have to say that for the last six years my electorate of Forrest was very poorly served by the Labor government. There is no better example of this than what I call the absolute blight of Labor's carbon tax. I have energy generators in my electorate—Muja Power Station, Collie, Bluewaters 1 and 2.

I think this will be something very relevant to people in Western Australia heading to the next election, because the carbon tax, along with the mining tax, was really a Western Australian tax. Of the 20 carbon tax bills in Australia, 16 have been sent to electricity companies. Electricity is being hit with a carbon tax of $4.1 billion. That is passed on to households and to small businesses through their electricity bills. That is happening around Australia; but in Western Australia electricity generation was a $200 million work bill. The Bluewaters power stations in my electorate were billed $60 million.

We know that manufacturing and the mining have been hit with a bill of at least $1.1 billion; mining oil and gas, $980 million. Why would you make a bad situation worse? That is exactly what the Labor government did. For some reason they thought that business would be able to function under this increasing weight. And it was going to keep going up. That is what people have forgotten in this debate: that carbon tax was going to continue to increase. Of the top 50 carbon tax bills sent to WA businesses: LNG at Woodside, $172 million; BHP Billiton Worsley Alumina, in my electorate, $56 million. And we know about fertiliser at the Yara Pilbara plant up north at $35 million. They are just examples.

The one thing that we know is that none of our competitors are facing the same economy-wide carbon tax as those in Australia are. We know that the cost to the state government in Western Australia would be around $50 million.

For some reason, the Labor Party when in government thought that these were just throwaway lines. But they are very real and they are very costly. They have affected every person—every individual—and every business and every industry in my electorate.

The other part of this carbon tax that completely floored me, when I looked through Labor's papers, was the proposed hit to diesel fuel. We know that this was going to be Labor's transport tax, a tax on trucks. As someone from the transport industry I took it personally. We could see how this was going to be applied. It was around 7c a litre. The extraordinary thing about it was there was no recognition that this was going to disproportionately hit states like Western Australia, anybody else who lived in a rural or regional community and anybody in business in any way, shape or form. It would hit virtually everything that is delivered to a business or a farm throughout our states. And it is a vast continent. That is why there would be a disproportionate impact—because this extra 7c a litre was going to be on diesel. I can see the member for Riverina looking at me because he understands the disproportionate effect this would have on rural and regional Australia—a tax on trucks. Just about everything that is delivered in this country, whether or not the members opposite like to admit it, comes on the back of a truck. But they were saying: 'We're going to tax it just to get to you. We'll just put up the cost of you doing business.'

One of the other things we said we were going to do was restore the Australian Building and Construction Commission. I was one of those who did some work on this in the run up-to the election, and we are certainly due for this. I heard, earlier, one of my colleagues mention that Martin Ferguson might be one of the most quoted persons in this House. I agree, because I am about to do the same thing. Mr Ferguson said:

… it is time that some in today's union leadership recognised that their members' long-term interests are aligned with their long term job security.

And he supported our proposal to return the Australian Building and Construction Commission.

I want to touch on one other issue that I worked particularly hard on, and that is cybersafety. The internet is one of the most fabulous tools; but, as it expands and develops faster and faster speeds and greater reach, unfortunately, the risks are also increasing. That is why I spend a lot of my time educating Australians, particularly young Australians, on how to protect themselves and even their families, on what to be aware of when they are online. Why is this an issue? Because, according to Telstra, Australian kids aged between 10 and 17 are online for an average of two hours a day—amongst the highest internet usage rates in the world. I would say, from my experience out in my electorate, that that is a very conservative figure. When I ask young kids, 'When you go home after school, how much time do you get to spend on the internet,' sometimes it is half an hour, sometimes it is two hours, sometimes it is unlimited. When I say to them, 'What about the weekend,' it is, 'As much as I like.' But the thing that scares me most as a parent and as a member of the community is that, all too frequently, I meet young people who admit to me that they have gone and met in person somebody they had only met online. I hope that is a real wake-up call to every person in this House, every person who is listening and even to young people themselves. They have no idea who they are talking to online or what that person wants from them. I want them to enjoy what they do online. I want them to be able to access the right information and enjoy what they do, whether it is music—whatever interaction they are having. But they do need to be smart, they need to stay safe and they need to be incredibly responsible when they are online. I want to see this education continue.

I am also particularly pleased about our approach to cyberbullying. One of the things I am really keen to explore further is a simple, practical definition of cyberbullying as an offence that can be used at a local level, because I have dealt with our local police on these sorts of matters and because a mother rang me up to say that her 11-year-old daughter came home after listening to one of my presentations and said, 'Mum, I realise now, after listening to Mrs Marino, that I am being groomed online.' Now, this is happening so much of the time. These are not isolated incidents that I am coming across, and their prevalence disturbs me greatly. And it is not as though our young people are accessing the internet only at home; it is everywhere. They can go to an internet cafe, they can go to some fast-food outlets—there is free access—and of course at the houses of friends, family and everyone else.

These young people need to know how to protect themselves, but I believe that these great young people are a major part of the answer. When I ask them in my presentations, 'Do you think you know more than your parents about being online, about the internet,' they say yes. If I ask them if they know more than their grandparents, of course their answer is yes there as well. When I ask them if they think they know more than their younger brothers and sisters at this moment, of course they say yes again. And they are right, because this is their world, this is their space and they do know more than most of us. That is why we need them to help educate the rest of us. But we also need them to be smart about what they do online, and one of the key messages I give them is that they should never, ever, not under any circumstances, agree to meet in person someone that they have only met online.

There is another area of pressure for our young people online, and I am really concerned about this. I was talking to the principal of a high school in my electorate recently, and he said that it was not just the academic, practical and VET accomplishments of his students that consumed his time and thoughts; his biggest concern was their mental health, and a lot of that revolved around what they do in the social media space and the impact that has on their lives.

When I talk to young people they say to me that they often have access to their devices 24 hours a day, seven days a week. When it is that young person who is going through a bad time, that is the time when they are going to bullied—and it is 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It is relentless and these young people do not know how to handle it. And it is not just young people; adults can have the same experience.

I get out as often as I can and I talk to as many people as I can—young people, businesses, community groups, parents; whomever I can get to—and I encourage them to learn as much as they can about what they do online and to apply the same safety measures to themselves as they should apply to their children. I encourage them to be involved with their children online. Their children actually say to me that often they cannot talk to mum and dad about what is going on online because they are worried that mum and dad will take away the device, take away their access or ground them—or do a combination of all three. So often they will not talk to their parents. But they do need to talk to someone, and that needs to be a teacher or a responsible adult.

We should not brush this off and take it lightly. As I said, this is 24 hours a day, seven days a week for these great young people. It is a very difficult issue for them to deal with and they do need good people like ourselves around them to help and support them during this time, even if they have to perhaps talk to someone in their school—a school chaplain or a school counsellor or even their teacher and their principal. I know that some young people have been encouraged into using a range of different photo-sharing sites, and I am really concerned about the types of photos that are online that these young people know will be there basically forever. (Time expired)

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

I pay tribute to the member for Forrest. She has been passionate about this issue of online safety, particularly for children. It has been a cause which she has been promoting to members and senators throughout this place. It is obviously something that is paying dividends now in the community. I note that the government is also responding to concerns that the member has been raising for quite some time in this place. So I do pay tribute to her. It is an important issue—one that is probably not so headline grabbing unless something terrible happens but one that we all need to be mindful of in this digital era.

Today I rise to speak on the appropriation bills that are before us. The appropriation bills, in layman's terms, are the updates to the nation's finances—the budget and the chops and changes that we have had to that budget. What I intend to do is give a bit of an appraisal from my point of view as the member for Dawson of how we are travelling as a nation economically. I have to say that one thing that is quite clear is that the situation we now have is absolutely astonishing, given that we have been through what should have been almost a golden era economically for Australia, where we have had the resources boom in full flight, great prices for our commodities and mining companies booming throughout the Bowen Basin and throughout your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, and over in Western Australia it has been powering on. The previous government talk of how they saved this nation from the GFC. Well, they did not. The reality is that there were only two sectors that were pulling the nation ahead, and it certainly was not the government. It was resources and it was agriculture. That is what kept this nation afloat throughout the GFC, combined with the fact that there was actually money in the cupboard—a surplus that the previous government had left; money in the bank—that could be spent in that time of need. The reality is that it was the resources sector and the agricultural sector that pulled us through the GFC.

I think of all of that economic activity—probably the greatest there has been in this nation, particularly in the resources sector. And what do we have now to show for it? We are careering head first into $667 billion worth of debt. That is a staggering figure—six hundred and sixty-seven thousand million dollars worth of debt that is saddled on the taxpayers of this nation and saddled on the government. This is a debt that is going to accrue interest—a debt that we are going to reach unless we turn around the good ship of Australia and set it on the right course. That was indeed what this government was elected to do. The Liberal and National coalition was elected to clean up the mess that we had been left from the Rudd-Gillard and Rudd again governments—a mess that almost brought the nation to its knees.

One of my political heroes is the late and great US President Ronald Reagan. I am going to paraphrase him. He could have been speaking specifically about Labor governments but he did not; he just said 'government's'. But I am going to say 'Labor's' just to help the quote. Labor's:

… view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

What an apt description for the last six years of Labor government that we saw in this country. If it moved it was taxed. The mining industry was powering ahead and creating jobs right throughout Central and North Queensland and regional Queensland—and in your electorate as well, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott—and creating jobs in Western Australia. It was an industry that was moving and the government saw it and said, 'Here is where we can get some money from,' and brought in a mining tax. They brought in a mining tax that collected nothing from the big players, I have to say—or just about next to nothing—but certainly hampered investment from new miners, which is why we have seen this dry-up of investment in the resources sector.

Then they brought in a carbon tax, which again hit so many mines out there. Mines that have fugitive gas emissions were all hit under the carbon tax for millions and millions of dollars. In fact, one mine alone in Central Queensland reported a $12 million hit from the carbon tax. At a time when prices contracted, this was devastating. The international price of coal fell and that was devastating for those mines. We have seen lay-offs not just of direct workers at the mines but also in the mining service companies that sprang up in what should have been this golden era, which have been contracting very heavily. I have seen estimates put out by organisations such as the Queensland Resources Council that job losses throughout the Bowen Basin are probably upwards of 11,000. In fact, I recently saw one estimate of over 15,000. Those are the direct jobs. The flow-on through mining service companies has been even greater and has been felt in towns such as Mackay and throughout the Dawson electorate. So that was clearly an example of, 'If it moves, tax it.' They did, and they just about killed it.

This government is going to restore confidence in the mining sector, but we can only do that if the opposition accepts the fact that this government has a mandate. We have a mandate to get rid of the mining tax, to get rid of the carbon tax, to implement the minerals exploration tax credit and to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission. These are four key policies. If we were able to get on with the job and do what we said we were going to do in the election, and if Labor got out of the way and just let us do it by instructing their senators to pass this legislation and accept the will of the Australian people, then we would be able to get mining back on the road again.

Ronald Reagan also said that, if it kept moving, you had to regulate it, and we certainly saw that under the last government. We have seen the chaos that has ensued from the obviously ham-fisted handling of the national transport regulations, which has brought the whole heavy vehicle industry to a grinding halt. It is symptomatic of the kind of ill-thought-through projects, proposals and regulations that we saw under the previous government.

In my electorate there was one major project that we wanted to get signed off months and months ago, and that was the Abbot Point coal terminal expansion. I had a town there—I still have a town there, but only just—by the name of Bowen. Bowen is on its knees. It has suffered job losses and business closures, all because of a lack of confidence and a belief that the government of the day, the previous Labor government, were not going to approve the Abbot Point coal terminal expansion and would acquiesce to their mates the Greens, who they were in government with. It sapped the lifeblood out of that town. It is only starting to come back now, since the current environment minister has finally approved that job-creating project, despite all the hoo-ha that has come out of the green movement on it and all the lies—and they have been lies, I have to say—that have been told about this project.

I found it very interesting that on that front the previous government would not say whether they would approve it or not—they kept the people waiting—but in fact the Labor candidate that ran against me at the last election told the people of Bowen that she supported it and would make sure that that approval happened. Well, the approval happened under this government, and what did the former Labor environment minister have to say about it? He said it was a bad thing and would probably harm the reef. So we know what Labor would have done for the town of Bowen and that project: they would have caved in once again to their Green mates, killed jobs and destroyed opportunity in a town which, as I said, is currently on its knees. There are so many other examples of this sort of rot that has gone on, impacting upon the development of North Queensland and the livelihoods of my constituents.

Ronald Reagan had another quote, and I am going to paraphrase that: if the federal government had been around when the Creator was putting his hand to things, Queensland would not be here; it would still be awaiting an EPBC approval. That was pretty much the reality under the previous government. But we are getting on with the job. We have approved so many major projects under this government. We are streamlining things. Environmental regulation is now going to be a one-stop shop: the state governments will be handling it. Why do we need two separate processes? Why do we need two years to go through a state environmental check and then two years to go through a federal environmental check? Why can't it be done more quickly, as South Australia can do? They have approved the biggest resource project in this country, I understand, and they did it in a bit over six months. If it can be done that quickly by a state government, why can't it all be done in a streamlined fashion and in that time frame? If we can do that, we will restore confidence not just to the resources sector but to the entire investment community out there. If they can see that these processes are going to happen quickly, we can get investment into projects and we can get jobs created. But again we need support from the opposition. We need them to recognise the fact that this government has a mandate to do that sort of stuff.

The final thing that Reagan said was that if it stopped moving then you subsidise it. We have unfortunately seen the results of a lot of the previous Labor government's policies come to a head. Unfortunately, in the few short months that we have been in government, we have seen major companies like Holden and Toyota announce that they are going. We have had requests for help from companies like SPC Ardmona and now Qantas that have been struggling under the weight of such policies as the carbon tax. This government is obviously considering every single cry for help and trying to do what it can within its means, but what do we hear instead of something well thought through from the other side? They just yell out: 'Throw money at it! Save it! Subsidise it!' Well, how big a cheque are they willing to write? How much taxpayers' money are they willing to throw at corporate welfare?

That is the problem with the Labor Party. They do not recognise that this nation is careering to $667 billion worth of debt, they just think that there is an endless bucket of money, Magic Pudding economics, and we can just write another cheque and hand it to another company to keep them going. That is not how things are going to work under this government. There will be new jobs created, there will be government investment in the regions, particularly in my region through the $6.7 billion that we are putting into the Bruce Highway to get that up to speed and projects such as the Mackay ring road that will go ahead.

These are things we are going to be doing that will directly create jobs but it is going to be real investment, not the fake sort of investment and dodgy schemes we saw under the previous government such as the school hall program. It is great there have been some results achieved there, but I went to one of the local schools in my area and the principal pointed out, 'This is the building we bought with P&C funds over here a couple of years ago. Here is the BER project.' I said, 'How much was that one?' She said: 'It was worth half the price of this one. That building over there, done by the P&C, was twice the size.' So there was your value for money under the BER. We had dodgy projects such as the pink batts scheme and the foil insulation scheme. I have a local constituent report to me that one of these pink batt salesmen came up and checked his roof and said: 'Yep, mate, we'll sort it out for you. We'll lay it all out.' He got a bit suspicious and crawled up in his roof to have a look and he already had the foil in there. It was already there. This is a kind of rot that went on and this is a kind of rot that needs to stop. That is what we are doing: stopping the rot, fixing the problems and getting on with the job of good government. Only if the opposition will join us can we actually implement these reforms we want to implement. They need to get rid of the carbon tax, get rid of the mining tax, help us implement the mandate we were elected to implement. (Time expired)

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise to speak on these appropriation bills. In the time available to me I would like to speak about important public policy considerations regarding value for money and sound public administration when it comes to the area of broadband and communications. This is an area where truth and honesty are enormously important. Unfortunately and regrettably for the people of Australia, it is an area which for most of the last six years has been in the hands of the former minister for broadband, Senator Conroy. It was a richly ironic spectacle to see that same man last week while asking questions in the estimates process in another place slam the table and say, 'Can't you handle the truth?' That was the question asked by Senator Conroy. Those who have watched the inglorious period in which he has had custody of broadband and communications policy in this nation would say to themselves, what a rich irony indeed that this man should be saying, 'Can't you handle the truth?'

Let us have a look at some of the more inglorious moments in the Conrovian approach to public policy, if I can appropriate for present purposes the adjective which the Minister for Communications has appropriately coined and which has become a byword for public policy incompetence. Let us look first at the Conrovian promise regarding the original fibre-to-the-node network when in March 2007 the then shadow communications minister promised to build a fixed broadband network using fibre to the node to deliver a speed of 12 megabits per second to 98 per cent of Australians. He promised it was going to cost a mere $4.7 billion of public money and it was going to be done in five years. What was the status five years later, five years after that March 2007 promise? By March 2012, far from reaching 98 per cent, Labor's broadband policy had delivered fixed broadband services to less than one-10th of one per cent of the targeted 10 million premises. In fact, its fibre network had a mere 2,315 services in operation, five years after that Conrovian promise of March 2007.

One of the more extraordinary Conrovian claims is to be found in a speech made by the then shadow minister in September 2007 in the Senate in which he said:

Labor's carefully costed fibre to the node network is based on a detailed calculation of the number of nodes required to reach 98 per cent of Australians. This includes the number of upgrades of exchanges and pillars internodes that are required.

Anybody who has even a passing acquaintance with the inglorious history of this extraordinary public policy disaster will know that the claim that the then shadow minister had carefully costed his fibre-to-the-node policy is, on a charitable description, heroic. In fact, the true cost of this network was always going to be vastly higher than the $4.7 billion figure because the then shadow minister used a figure which was taken from a 2005 proposal made by Telstra that, for $4.7 billion of government money plus its own money, Telstra would upgrade its network to deliver 12 megabits per second to 98 per cent of premises.

But there are at least two crucial reasons why that figure was incorrectly, inaccurately and inappropriately used by the then shadow minister. Firstly, Telstra's figure was a request for a subsidy. There was certainly no intention on the part of Telstra that in exchange for the $4.7 billion government would get an ownership stake in the network, as the Labor policy in 2007 assumed. Secondly, the Telstra 2005 proposal did not involve fibre to the node to 98 per cent of premises; it involved a mix of existing and new networks and technologies which would have been very materially less expensive than the Conrovian model of fibre to the node to 98 per cent of premises.

The flaws and inaccuracies in the Conrovian model were revealed once he tried to implement it. His intended private sector partner was Telstra but Telstra refused to participate in the plan, and so in April 2009 the then minister by this time abandoned his first plan and announced his second, now to be a fibre-to-the-premises network to 90 per cent of premises with wireless and satellite to the rest, and the cost would be $43 billion. So let us assess what he promised in March 2007 and what he delivered. He promised the new network would be substantially private-sector funded with public funding capped at $4.7 billion. In fact—

Debate interrupted.