Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to this year's budget, in particular the Youth Employment Strategy, intensive support and Youth Transition to Work, I note that $212 million will be—as it states in the budget—provided over four years to establish a new support service. The questions that I have of the minister or, indeed, either of the ministers—whoever feels responsible to answer this particular question—are as follows. Firstly, where is this money coming from? Is it new money or is being reallocated from existing expenditure? Is it from the Department of Employment? Is it arising from the department's budget allocation? If so, is it offset? If not, where has the money come from? Has it been offset? Is it new money? I think these are important things for the public to know. Clearly, when the government announced this and when the Treasurer on budget night presented this particular initiative, the impression was left for those listening that this was a measure that was above and beyond the existing expenditure. I think it is important for the government to explain fully where they have funded this amount of money.

I note also that funding will be provided to a network of community-based organisations to deliver the support. In doing so, we ask for some answers to the following questions. How will the organisations be selected in terms of the network of community-based organisations? Is there a tender process or is it by way of another process? When will the selection process begin, if it has not already? How many organisations does the government estimate will bid for such a service? Which areas or electorates will these services be provided to? How will the government determine those areas? Also, when will those areas be known to the public?

The government, as we know, abolished what we would argue was a very successful program—Youth Connections. In fact, as a local member and as the shadow minister for employment, I have received many submissions from interested parties about the loss of that program. In light of the loss of that particular initiative, which I think was really showing some great success in terms of connecting young people to the labour market, we ask the following questions. How does this program that I have just referred to differ from Youth Connections? Was any analysis done between Youth Connections and this program? Youth Connections, for example, assisted 25,000 people per year. How many does this program support? Why did the government not re-establish Youth Connections given its obvious success?

Finally, the government refers to its program as assisting 'disengaged young people' who are between the ages of 15 and 21. How did the government arrive at that age category, given that the definition of people who are unemployed under the definition of young people is different to that? Was any modelling done? Is the government targeting a certain age range within the 15 to 21 bracket? How long will a participant be involved in the program? Will the participant receive support after completing the program? How, if at all, does this program interact with the government's National Work Experience program? How will it be determined who is in the program?

I note that this particular program is designed to support people who are at high risk of long-term unemployment and welfare dependency. As a result of that, I ask what measure it is that will be used to determine if the people are at high risk of long-term unemployment. Can people who have already been considered to be long-term unemployed access the program once it is initiated? These are some of the questions the opposition has of the minister. We invite the minister to respond to those questions.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Assistant Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the issue of the Youth Transition to Work program. I can reassure the shadow minister not only that we are investing $6.8 billion in a new Job Active employment services system, which is going to deliver better services to job seekers and better services to employers, but also that this program forms part of our $330 million youth employment strategy. The member will be pleased to hear that it is new money. It is money from the budget. It is additional funding to Job Active. It is part of our commitment to help young people from welfare into work.

The good member asked about the issue of the selection process for organisations to be involved in this. We are currently looking at options for the most efficient, effective way in which we can select participants to deliver the services under the transition to work program. I am certainly taking views from community organisations on the design and final details of the program we have in mind. It is a program that has a different focus from Youth Connections. This program has a focus on getting young people actually into work. That is the very important difference. The cohort of young people who will participate in the transition to work program will be selected on the basis that, with appropriate services and appropriate wraparound services—with the types of services that will be delivered under this program, such as mentoring, coaching and pre-employment training—we will be getting them to the point where they can make that important journey from the first rung of the ladder into employment.

It is vitally important that we do not continue the age-old process of endless training for training's sake—endless courses that were not delivering the important job outcome that we as a government want for our young people and that young people want themselves. There is nothing more debilitating for a young person than to participate in a program only to find out on exiting that program that there is no future coming out of it. So we are about a program that will deliver a job. Youth Transition to Work is an important part of that strategy. It does it in a number of ways. As I said, there is mentoring and coaching. Communications skills development—how a young person is going to participate in a job interview and what the employer is expecting of that young person—will give the young person confidence to go to a job interview and to know that they will have the support they need to get by in the workforce. Literacy and numeracy skills for those young people who need it are vitally important. Also teamwork skills—important new skills. And there is access to work experience. Transition to work will fit in with a suite of programs to deliver a total service that will get more young people into work.

Another service that the program may be providing for some young people in certain circumstances, and one that I know will be popular with many young people, is assistance in some cases to get a drivers licence. For many young people the lack of a drivers licence can be a major impediment to getting into work. Also there is support for young people in taking up apprenticeships. It is a wide range of measures as part of a wraparound service targeted at young people who may not necessarily get the job they need through the conventional assistance that is offered under Job Active. This is a supplement to Job Active. A young person who participates in transition to work will be deemed to be completing whatever mutual obligation requirements that young person has. It is a great new program. It is one that has a work focus—as opposed to Youth Connections, which lacked a work focus. That was a major criticism of that program. At the end of the program the young person was not necessarily any closer to getting a job. We are overcoming that barrier. We have a work focus. We have a program that will use community groups to deliver outcomes and deliver support for young people. We will be looking at placing programs in areas where we can have that continuum: entering the program, being assisted and having their confidence built with a view to, at the end of the day, an employer being available that will be able to offer a job outcome to young people. It is all about getting people on that journey into work. Work is vitally important. This is a work-first approach in transition to work. We have thought this through very carefully. We are consulting widely with community groups to deliver the program. It will be, I think, a game changer for many young people.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Hartsuyker: as you know, my electorate has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. The unemployment rate for Hinkler is 10 per cent, and for the broader wide Bay region it is 13½ per cent. The youth unemployment rate among 15- to 24-year-olds in my region is 20.6 per cent. Unlike those on the other side, I recognise that it is businesses that create jobs, not governments. The businesses that I speak to all say they are willing to train people but are concerned that not enough of the job seekers they meet are work ready. They do not have the required soft skills, like turning up on time and dressing appropriately. On the other side of the coin, job seekers say they struggle to get a foot in the door to get some much-needed experience in the workplace. As I am sure you are aware, Mr Hartsuyker, we have had great success with the Work for the Dole program—some fantastic success with that program.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I will give you a good example. We have interjections from the other side, but I will give you a great example from the former Hervey Bay mayor, Ted Sorensen, the now state member for Hervey Bay and a fantastic man. He is a good local member and has been for at least two terms down there and many years as the mayor. Ted's advice is that in his time as mayor the Work for the Dole program worked exceptionally well. It brought young kids in, it gave them experience and it gave them the things they desperately need in order to get a job. And the first one of those of course is soft skills. The employers I meet with—and I have to tell you, Assistant Minister, it is all the employers I meet with—have real challenges identifying people inside our electorate who have the basic skills: turn up on time, be dressed, be work ready, be willing to leave your phone behind and not have it with you 24/7, have the ability to show up every single day, not just on occasions when it might be appropriate for you, to come to work and enjoy work and have the skills needed to show up.

The other thing Ted spoke about, and he spoke about it often, was the great advantage they got from learning additional social skills. They are able to work with new colleagues. And life skills: to be able to work with more people, people who are actually in the workforce and who have things they want to transfer. This knowledge transfer is incredibly important. It is something I spoke about in my maiden speech. We are losing the skills from our experienced workforce, and they are not being transferred across to the current generation. We need to ensure that we transfer those skills. Ted spoke about all of those things, but the most important thing for the mayor of Hervey Bay was that many of the people who were involved in Work for the Dole got a job. They got a full-time job after they completed the program, and a number of them with council, with local government. It is a fantastic outcome for them, and as far as I am aware they are still there. The skills they learned in Work for the Dole, working for council, gained them employment. So, they are very, very important skills.

It is important that we identify that Work for the Dole has worked so far. It has been great. I also appreciate the fact that the minister has been to my electorate three times. I am fairly certain that those in the opposition do not even know where my electorate is. But the minister has come up to have a look and gain some real first-hand experience—three visits, which has been fantastic. We have been to an organisation called WeCareToo, which was using the Work for the Dole program to help the local community. They are a food bank—

An honourable member: Famous for its whales.

Whales, seafood—many things. But they are helping the local community through Work for the Dole. They provide experience for a food bank that helps people who cannot afford to purchase food. That is their role. It is a fantastic outcome.

Building on the success of Work for the Dole in giving people real-world experience, the 2015 budget included funding for a national work experience program, which is something different. Can the minister please advise how job seekers and employers in my electorate and indeed elsewhere in the country—almost as important as my electorate!—will benefit from the national work experience program?

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Assistant Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question, and let me say that he is indeed a member who is in tune with the needs of business and a member who cares passionately about the subject of employment, particularly generating opportunities for young people. The good member raised the issue of Work for the Dole, and I was pleased to be able to host that in his electorate, one of the 18 regions in phase 1 of Work for the Dole. It has been very successful, and the good member noted the comments of the member for Hervey Bay, Ted Sorensen, about the importance of Work for the Dole.

The insight the good member has given in relation to the importance of those soft skills is shared not only by employers in the electorate of Hinkler but also right round the country. In a survey of over 3,000 employers by my department, in their responses employers were saying that the best thing young people could do to improve their prospects of getting a job was to improve their attitude in the workplace and the way they present in the workplace. Work for the Dole has an important role to play in giving young people those important soft skills that the good member referred to, such as turning up on time, being dressed appropriately, knowing how to treat customers in a business and knowing how to get on with your workmates. They are skills that we who have been in the workforce for many years take for granted but regrettably they are skills that some young people, who perhaps have not seen anyone in their family working, do not have.

I am pleased to advise that Work for the Dole goes national on 1 July as part of the $6.8 billion Job Active program—a huge investment in getting people from welfare into work. Work for the Dole goes national, giving young people some important skills to assist them on the first rung of the ladder of getting into the workforce. Work for the Dole is not a policy in isolation; it is part of a broader suite of measures. As part of this year's budget we have introduced the National Work Experience Program, which will give people four weeks work experience, probably in a commercial environment, which will allow young people to demonstrate to an employer the sorts of skills that they can bring to a workplace. It will allow a young person to demonstrate to an employer exactly what they can do, that they are up to the job, that they are keen, that they are willing and that they are supported by an employment services system into that role. It is part of a continuum, because supporting the National Work Experience Program we have a range of flexible wage subsidies.

A likely pathway that a young person could have for getting into work might be starting in a Work for the Dole placement and showing his Work for the Dole supervisor that he is keen, that he wants to work and that he turns up every day on time, and as a result being offered a work placement by his employment service provider to get in with an employer for a four-week period. At the end of the four-week period the potential is there for eligible job seekers to have a wage subsidy to help them—a wage subsidy of up to $6,500 to help the employer offset the costs of bringing in that new person. So we see a very clear pathway which potentially integrates Work for the Dole but not necessarily. A young person could go straight into the Work Experience Program without having done Work for the Dole, but it would be a likely pathway: Work for the Dole through to work experience through to a permanent job. Isn't that a great outcome? It is the sort of outcome that the government wants to see.

It is very much part of our strategy of getting people into work where we have a very flexible system. We had a system under Labor, under the old Job Services Australia, that was mired in red tape and bound up in bureaucracy. It was a terrible program to the extent that there was far too much red tape and that red tape was hampering employment service providers getting people into work. We are getting rid of that red tape. Job Active continues that process with much less red tape and a much greater focus on outcomes. The outcome that we want is getting people into a job. The outcome that job seekers want is getting people into a job. And the outcome that employers want is having people presenting at the gates of their business with the necessary skills to allow them to get by in that business and contribute to that business. It is a very good program. Work for the Dole is an important part of it, work experience is an important part of it and wage subsidies are an important part of it.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Having listened to the Assistant Minister for Employment run through a number of matters, I am assuming by his response to my earlier questions that he is taking almost all of those on notice. I certainly will be keen to hear the answers on those matters. He did make the point that the money for the youth employment initiatives outlined in the budget was new money. That is surprising to the opposition in light of the budget's own expenses in table 2.1.1, which goes to the forward estimates for expenditure for Job Active last budget compared to this budget.

I just want to place on the record the variations in the forecast of expenditure in the budget this year compared with last year. In the 2015-16 year, expenditure as outlined last year was to be $1,767,184,000. That has gone down from $1.76 billion to $1.45 billion in that time. Therefore, that is a shortfall of about $170 million in that year. I have asked the assistant minister to explain why there has been an alteration in the expenditure for the next financial year.

In the following financial year 2016-17 the original forecast in last year's budget was approximately $1.86 billion. That has come down to $7.7 billion so, again, there is about a $70 million or $80 million reduction in the forecast for that year. I would ask the assistant minister why that would be the case. Also for the 2017-18 year, there is also a further reduction of about $160 million, from $1.93 billion to $1.77 billion, so there have been very significant reductions in the expenditure as forecast by the budget. That is at a time when the budget's own papers forecast unemployment to rise to 6.5 per cent. One of the reasons might have been that the forecast would fall because of the forecast reduction in unemployment, but that is not the case. Unemployment, according to the budget papers, is to go up in the next financial year to 6.5 per cent, a 14-year high. Therefore, that would not account for why you would reduce the expenditure in the new program jobactive. Therefore, I ask the assistant minister to explain exactly why that is the case.

As I am on my feet, I would also ask the minister about some of the matters he raised in his answer to the member for Hinkler. Firstly, wage subsidies. I think wage subsidies can work and sometimes they do work. As I have said before, we support the government if they are able to find successful initiatives that lead to good outcomes. I ask the minister now or perhaps on notice if he does not have all the figures with him, but I would hope he would have them, how those wage subsidy programs are going. Sometimes they are hit and miss; sometimes they work. Given the forecasts that were made about the uptake of those opportunities for employers to subsidise wages to employ more people, we would of course like to see that work. We ask the minister to table or to provide answers as to how those programs are going to date.

In relation to the national rollout of Work for the Dole, again, Labor does support work experience. We do not believe it is the only measure that can work for people who are out of work. We do not necessarily believe that it is the best approach for someone who has been 30 years in the labour market and who may have been retrenched recently. We think that person, to be reconnected to the labour market, is more likely to need new skills. They do not need a work culture. They have spent three decades in the labour market. That is not a person who really needs to know how to work in teams, under supervision and to turn up for work. They have been doing that for many years. But having said that, we do accept that the Work for the Dole programs, if well structured and targeted at the people who do not have a work culture, can be effective. We would ask, insofar as the rollout is concerned, which areas are going to be targeted first in relation to that national rollout.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Assistant Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the shadow minister for his question and take the latter parts of his questions first. The rollout will happen nationally around the country from 1 July. Quite clearly, it will ramp up aggressively in each area, but there will be a national rollout starting in all areas on 1 July. With regard to wage subsidies we have introduced a range of measures to make those wage subsidies more flexible and more appealing to employers. Previously, the subsidies tended to be back-ended and wage subsidies were not paid until later in the employment period. After some very careful consultation with a range of stakeholders it was felt that the more flexible we could make wage subsidies the more appealing that would be for employers.

Take the Restart program, for example, which focuses on people over the age of 50. Restart was, under the previous budget, payable over 24 months, and we have now made that Restart program payable over 12 months. That is a welcome improvement. We are allowing flexibility for employment service providers to negotiate with various employers to come up with a payment structure that is mindful of the importance of ensuring that government revenue is spent wisely but in a way that meets the needs of employers. For example, under the new arrangements the wage subsidies can be paid fortnightly if the employer would like that. The youth wage subsidy was previously paid when a young person had been unemployed for a period of 12 months; it is now payable when a young person has been unemployed for six months, with a view to assisting a young person into work before they get to the point of becoming long-term unemployed. With all of our wage subsidies, as with Restart, there is a degree of flexibility to meet the needs of the employer. The more flexible we can make these wage subsidies, the more effectively they will be taken up.

Another thing we have done is combine all the wage subsidies into a $1.2 billion wage subsidy pool. If the take-up in wage subsidy A is not up to expectations but the take-up in wage subsidy B is heading towards over-expectations, the money can flow—it will be a global budget, basically. Money can go where the demand is. That is another important element in ensuring that we get the maximum utilisation of the wage subsidies.

With regard to the other elements of the question, we are putting more money on the table for employment services than Labor ever did. That is an important point—this is a massive investment. It is a $6.8 billion investment in Job Active; there is a Youth Employment Strategy of $330 million. These are massive commitments by this government to ensure that we get as many people as possible off welfare and into work. We are making our wage subsidies more flexible so that we are getting greater take-up by employers, and that is really important. We are building pathways in the system such as I mentioned earlier, where a person can follow a path through Work for the Dole, through work experience and ultimately into a subsidised position. These are great new initiatives that are going to mean that programs are more effective.

One of the really important things we are doing is strongly focusing on payment for results. We are no longer paying for process; we are no longer paying for training for training's sake; we are no longer paying for, in many cases, training outcomes. We are overwhelmingly paying for getting people into work. The outcome we pay for is getting someone into a job. Employment service providers will get a modest retainer or a modest administration fee to cover the costs of individual people on their case load, but if employment service providers are going to succeed under the Job Active system then they are going to need to build strong relationships with employers so that they will have a supply of jobs that they can put their job seekers into. If they do not have strong relationships with employers they are not going to get the number of successful placements that are required to ensure that a particular organisation will succeed under this new system. We are about a strong, results-focused system. We have stripped down red tape, and we want a more effective system for job seekers and employers.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Few issues can be more important for my electorate and for the future of this country than chronic youth unemployment and skills gaps. Those opposite are always keen to crow about being the party of jobs, the party of employment, but the striking thing for me in the last decade or so has been watching what actually happened in practice. The really striking thing was that in the final years of the Howard government, from 2004 through to 2007, we saw a 13 per cent increase in youth employment rates, but between 2008 and 2013 we saw an eight per cent reduction in youth employment rates. We saw participation rates for people under the age of 25 falling from 71 per cent to 66 per cent. We are at the point now where we have youth unemployment rates of around 12 per cent or more, significantly more in some regions, compared to just under six for the overall economy. This is a very serious problem that we inherited from the previous Labor government and that they failed to address.

The other side of this, though, was the collapse in apprenticeship completions under the previous government. We saw something like a 40 per cent failure rate. That is a very serious problem, particularly when you consider what is happening on the demand side. I was finishing off some work in my office on Friday in Goulburn and a couple of plumbers came in to do some work. I had a chat with them. They were Dean Thompson and Troy Matthews, very good plumbers around Goulburn with a team of about eight. I said to them, 'How are you going for work?' They said, 'We've got heaps of work. In fact, we're going to take advantage of this accelerated depreciation. Lots of other people are taking advantage of that, and our workload is such that we really don't even have to pick up the phone before the calls come in—we don't have to actively market at the moment. It's fantastic. But I tell you what: we can't find apprentices.' We saw the failure of the apprenticeship policy under the last government. They thought everyone should get a university degree; in fact, we need more plumbers. So we have a very serious problem not just with youth unemployment but with matching those skills to the needs out in the marketplace.

These are problems that I know the assistant minister has been thinking hard about and working hard on for a considerable amount of time, and I note some of the initiatives that he has already talked about. Can the assistant minister please advise in some detail what measures are in the budget that will assist young unemployed people in my electorate to find work?

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Assistant Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Hume for his comments. He certainly brings great skills to our side of politics and has a strong knowledge of the commercial realities of the Australian economy and the importance of ensuring that we maximise the productive capacity of our young people. We have a broad range of measures under the new Job Active program and under the Youth Employment Strategy that are going to assist young people.

I will start with something that is important in engaging young people. One of the new things that we are doing, over and above the things that I mentioned in my earlier contributions today, is that we are going to be focusing on the Job Active system and the interaction between young people and their employment providers. We are going to talk to young people in their language. We are going to allow them to use IT; we are going to allow them to use text, SMS and electronic means of communication to communicate with their employment service providers. The new Australian JobSearch website will be much more elaborate. It will be much more focused on being better for job seekers and better for employers. It will be easier for employers to post vacancies. It will be easier for young people to search. They will be able to determine where the jobs are virtually by looking at home, without having to go out and walk the streets. There is no substitute for going out and talking to employers if you are a job seeker, but to be able to do some of this job searching more efficiently and more effectively through better IT systems will be an important element that I think will appeal to many young people and increase their interest in getting work. Under the Job Active system, as I said earlier, we have very much a focus on results so that the employment service providers must get that young person a job. They cannot put the young person in the too-hard basket, because, unless they get that young person a job, they will not be getting the remuneration they need to make a profit and keep their doors open.

Supporting the Job Active system, we have a range of measures. I talked about the Transition to Work program—$212 million, offering a range of support through a wraparound means of delivery such as mentoring and coaching, literacy and numeracy skills development, communication skills development, teamwork skills development and access to work experience. We have the wider national work experience program, over and above Transition to Work. We also have $106 million for assisting vulnerable job seekers, and this is very important. There are a range of measures under the assisting vulnerable job seekers program. We have $55.2 million for innovative youth program trials. They will be a range of trials delivered by community-based organisations which will approach the problem of youth unemployment from different perspectives. We are looking for innovation. There are many examples of small projects out there in communities that are highly successful. We are looking at ways we can scale up those successful projects. We are looking for new ideas, potentially, to approach the difficult problem of youth unemployment from a different perspective.

We have $8.9 million of funding in the budget to assist parents into employment. It is so vitally important that we assist young parents. We want to break the cycle of intergenerational unemployment. We have $19.4 million to support young people with a mental illness. Many, many employers can be hesitant in some cases to put on someone with a mental illness. We have to give young people with a mental illness support to get into work and we have to give employers support to take on people with a mental illness, because it is vitally important that we maximise, as I said, the productive capacity of all Australians.

We have $22.1 million to assist refugees and young migrants into work. Many refugees and young migrants face very substantial barriers getting into the workplace. This innovative strategy assisting vulnerable job seekers is approaching the problem from a different direction. It is using much of the expertise that is out there in the community—government partnering with community groups to upscale programs they already have in place and allowing community groups to perhaps put in place a new innovative program that has not been done before. These are exciting opportunities. They aim to assist young people from welfare into work and they are looking at those young people, who might fall through the gaps, with the vulnerable job seekers program, which is going to be one that will open up a range of doors for many young people.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did ask the Assistant Minister for Employment why there was a very significant reduction in the budget forecast for Jobactive. When I add it up, it is around $400 million. It may well be the case that the contract is longer. It goes for five years and, therefore, over that time there may be increased expenditure. But there is no doubt that there have been some very significant reductions in expenditure forecast in this budget compared to last year's budget—and I really have not had an answer from the minister. Yes, it is the case that there has been a new initiative. It would appear that, unless the minister can account for the reductions somewhere else, the money that has been allocated for the initiatives as outlined by the Treasurer in the budget on budget night have been derived from taking the money from Jobactive. It is the only thing I can conclude. I did provide an opportunity for the minister to explain the shortfall and he has failed to do so.

What I need to put on the record but also ask directly of the government, through this minister, is this: if the government is confident that these initiatives are so likely to lead to success and if indeed Jobactive is better than the preceding contract with the employment service providers, why is it the case that the government's own forecast is for unemployment to rise over the next financial year to a 14-year high?

It would seem to me, contrary to a lot of the rhetoric of the government, including the minister in the last half an hour, that if in fact the unemployment rate is to hit 6.5 per cent in the next financial year, it demands an answer. This government has decided to call this budget the jobs and families budget. For families with a single income of $60,000 a year, it is cutting their income by up to $6,000 a year in family tax benefits. It is calling it a jobs budget, yet jobs are going to be fewer insofar as the proportion of people looking for work because unemployment is rising, according to the budget's own figures. It seems to me, therefore, that something has gone awry here. The government is expecting higher unemployment. The fact is that the measures that have been referred to by the minister are not going to lead to the benefits because there is not going to be a reduction. We are going to see, at the very least, a six in front of the unemployment rate. Six per cent or higher is way too high for this country. Given those figures we really need to hear some answers as to why there has been that failure and why the government is forecasting failure in the area of unemployment.

The other thing I should note, given one of the previous speakers mentioned plumbers and apprenticeships, is that there has been a significant reduction in investment in apprenticeships and training by this government. Indeed, last year's budget saw a reduction. It may be difficult for the minister to answer this because it does not go directly to and might be incidental to his portfolio. I think he should take an interest because it is to do with tools for apprentices. There was an initiative that allowed for tools for tradies to be paid for so they were properly equipped. That was removed and, of course, what was put in its stead was a loan arrangement where young people could enter into loans and go into debt in order to finish their apprenticeships.

I wonder whether the minister would like to comment on how successful that is going, because the last time I spoke to some of the training providers they said that that has not been very well received, there is a very low take-up rate and it has not led to improved completion rates for tradespeople. So notwithstanding the rhetoric not of the minister but of a previous speaker about apprenticeships, it seems to me important for the minister perhaps to reflect upon whether it was wise of the government to remove the payment for tools for apprentices and put in its stead a loan arrangement which has not been taken up by apprentices and is not therefore creating the opportunities to see greater completion rates for apprentices in the trades. That is something else that we would like an answer to. (Time expired)

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Assistant Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can say that I bring good news. On the unemployment front we saw very welcome figures. Whilst one must always be cautious in interpreting employment figures, the most recent employment figures showed a reduction in the unemployment rate to six per cent. We certainly want to get it lower. The aim of Jobactive is to get as many people into work as possible. The aim of this budget is to help small business generate jobs. The aim of this government is to help the wider economy to generate jobs.

I am pleased to advise that we had an increase in full-time employment of some 14,700—reported by the Australian Bureau of Statistics—an increase in part-time employment of 27,300 and an increase in total employment of some 42,000, which is I think very welcome news. I know that members opposite would certainly welcome that improvement in the employment statistics. The government is committed to work hard and to work with business, particularly small business, the engine room of growth and employment in so many regional areas in particular, to get more people into work.

With regard to the budget numbers, it is important to note that employment services is a $7.3 billion budget item—$7.3 billion over the forward estimates. Not all of that money is coming directly from Jobactive and many of the changes to which the shadow minister mentioned relate to changes in wage subsidy policies and the timing of wage subsidies. It is important to point that out.

When I look at what is the alternative, on this side of the House we have got Jobactive—a new, more outcomes-focused system. We have got the Youth Employment Strategy. We have got more flexible wage subsidies. We have got the national rollout of Work for the Dole. Specifically in the Youth Employment Strategy we have got assistance for vulnerable job seekers, transition for youth and a focus on early school leavers. There are many things we are doing in the space. But when I look at those opposite, what do I see? I have only seen a $21 million pilot. That is all I have seen so far in the youth space—just a $21 million pilot. I would hope that members opposite would really focus and get behind what the government is doing.

We have got a range of measures that we are rolling out, and Work for the Dole is going national on 1 July. We are working very hard and we are absolutely committed to helping as many young people as possible move from welfare into work. When I look back on Work for the Dole I think it is an incredible statistic that a job seeker in the electorate of Leichhardt who was unemployed for 395 weeks got a job after a Work for the Dole placement. That is an outstanding result. I think we in this place would struggle to imagine the loss of self-esteem that would occur over such a long period of being unemployed, such a long period on benefits. Work for the Dole is proving to be very helpful to many young people, in particular, people who lack those basic skills, those important soft skills to get by in the workforce.

We have a focus on younger people through the Youth Employment Strategy and we have a focus on older workers through the Restart program. I recently visited the electorate of the good Deputy Speaker—and I know that the Deputy Speaker, as such, does not represent an electorate when she is in the chair. We met with a fine job seeker who had got a job with the assistance of the Restart program—Lexy. After being unemployed, Lexy got a job working in a local community organisation and was able to contribute to a community and get back into the workforce and was doing a great job. Her employers were very happy with the work that Lexy was doing, very happy with it indeed. She was making a great contribution to her employer and it was a great news story. It is part of what employment services can do, the way they can pave the way for people to get onto the first rung of the ladder of employment. Who knows where Lexy will be in a few years time with constant employment?

Louise Markus (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Most of us would agree that many in our communities across the nation move from education to employment without significant challenge, and many others move freely within the job market, demonstrating the skills and the networks that secure a job. However, there are many men and women of working age in our communities who face challenges and barriers to varying degrees in obtaining a job. Some of that may be because of their capacity and skills, some of it may be because they do not have the connections or the relationships or the networks that would open doors of opportunities for them. We know that under the previous Labor government employment services were allowed to focus on process rather than results. Many of us in our electorates have had job seekers come to us having experienced training after training and they have certificate after certificate and that does not necessarily result in a connection with an employer.

Minister, with the Australian government's new employment services—that will be Jobactive, starting on 1 July—could you please advise, particularly for the people of Macquarie, how job seekers will benefit from the $6.8 billion in the budget for the Jobactive service model?

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Assistant Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Macquarie for her question. I know that the good member is absolutely focused on the importance of employment with regard to the future of young people and older job seekers alike. I have certainly enjoyed visiting the good member's electorate. I recall that we visited Richmond Club, a great local club which was hosting Work for the Dole participants. It was a very great organisation in the way that they saw the benefits of Work for the Dole and they were able to provide some very work-like placements indeed at Richmond Club. We saw Work for the Dole participants involved in areas as diverse as greenkeeping in the club's bowling greens and in their golf course. The club also owned a local aged-care facility, so job seekers—whilst not participating in the giving of care, which is out of the scope of Work for the Dole—were able to participate in the laundry operations, in the maintenance operations and in the kitchen of the aged-care facility. I talked to a young person there at the aged care facility who, despite working in the laundry section, aspired to perhaps—at a stage in the future—move into the care of residents if an employment opportunity arose.

Within the licensed club itself there were Work for the Dole participants learning data-entry skills and a range of other skills, so that was a great organisation giving job seekers very work-like activities that were certainly placing them well with regard to the prospect of moving into work.

With regard to jobactive, when we came into government, unfortunately, the employment-services system was bound up in red tape. When I, as a minister new to the portfolio, got around and consulted with employment-services providers, they were saying, 'Lift the burden of red tape off us. We are spending up to 50 per cent of our time filling out forms. We are spending so much time mired in administration. We need to spend more time with our job seekers, have more time to consult with employers and get that match between job seekers and employers.'

We set about reducing red tape immediately, as part of the government's wider commitment to reducing red tape. The employment-services system was an area where we made significant contributions to that, and we were able to reduce red tape on employment-service providers by in excess of $30 million, which is a significant achievement. I know employment-service providers were pleased by that, and that process is not finished. It is ongoing. Under jobactive it will be a more efficient and more effective system, which will have less red tape again.

As to how we are going to deliver better services, there will be a better focus on results. We will not pay for training for training's sake. The outcome that we want is to get people into work. The outcome that employers want is to have a person presenting at the gates of their business, ready for work, and to have the support once that person starts in work. It will be vitally important, if an employment-services provider is to succeed, that they are getting people into jobs and that they are supporting those people into work, because they will be paid. The longer that person is in work, the better the financial result for the employment provider, the better the result for the employer and the better the result for the job seeker.

We have very much a results focused system. We have turned off the tap to training-for-training's sake. I have spoken to so many job seekers who were demoralised by the fact that they had a shoebox full of certificates and none of them was leading to a job. We are not against training—training has its place—but training must be against a backdrop that is leading to a specific job for which there is demand and will result in an outcome for that job seeker. It is a very important change in the system and one that I know is welcomed by virtually the entire sector.

I am very focused on implementing jobactive. The jobactive program starts on 1 July. We will be transitioning job seekers to their new providers. It is going to plan. We are looking forward to getting more people into work and creating more opportunities. I know the good member is looking forward to the start of jobactive. I know that the good member will seize the benefits of a more efficient and more effective jobactive system—a system which has better IT for young people to use technology to access their employment-services provider and to access the jobs that are available. It is a better Australian job-search website. It will be a great improvement over the previous system—an upgrade that is certainly much looked forward to by participants.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to raise a couple of issues with the minister. One, in particular, is about local employment coordinators. The minister would be aware that the former government had local employment coordinators in 21 priority-employment areas in the country. They were areas that had issues regarding structural adjustment and/or high unemployment.

I would particularly ask the minister some questions relating to why a decision was made to extend the Geelong employment coordinator, and why Geelong is now the only area in Australia that has a local-employment coordinator. Indeed, they did make some decisions to extend it, but this budget then extended it for another two years at a cost of $1.3 million. The department at the time responded to a question on notice saying that the government recognised that the Geelong region was experiencing a period of significant structural adjustment with a number of large-scale business closures, including Ford and Alcoa, all of which this side of the House has no argument with—and it is true.

But I guess the issue would be: what about those other areas in Australia, particularly those regional areas that have high unemployment, and what specific programs does the government have in place to deal with that? In the last lot of estimates when the government was asked about this, we got some different responses as to why Geelong had this extension. There was some talk about there being a case for Geelong because of the significant retrenchments. This is taken from the transcript of Ms Kidd's evidence. We also had Ms Leon say that a view was taken to give the Geelong program, which had only been in place a short time, the chance to form local employment networks and support, so it had been extended a bit further. So, apart from all of that, we are a bit concerned that a whole range of other areas in Australia might need a local employment coordinator.

If you look at the regional areas of high unemployment across Australia, let's say the top 10, they include areas like Wide Bay, Murray, Hunter Valley, Logan, Beaudesert, Richmond, Tweed, Townsville, New England, Mandurah, the south-east of Tasmania, my home state, the north of Adelaide, north of Moreton Bay, the west of Melbourne, Newcastle and Lake Macquarie. When you talk about high unemployment, all those areas come before Geelong. My question is: why aren't these areas also getting local employment coordinators or extensions of them? I asked the minister very seriously: was this because the member for Corangamite was to appear on Q&A and needed an announcement, or was it much more serious than that? What analysis did the government do to come up with an extension for Geelong and not for any of these other regions that are suffering from significantly high unemployment? This information is according to the ABS. If you look at average unemployment over 12 months, that is the order of areas. The communities in those areas are struggling and the government is sitting by. It is dealing with Geelong, which is a good thing, but it is not dealing with those other areas. As a Tasmanian who has a large number of regions struggling with high unemployment, there does not appear to be a great plan for them from the government.

We heard previously today about the wage subsidy and its flexibility. I would ask the minister about the wage subsidies and the way that the government has structured them. Wage subsidies were very flexible when they were part of the Employment Pathway Fund. Certainly the feedback I got from employment providers was that they loved the flexibility of the Employment Pathway Fund. Some providers are concerned about the structures which the government is putting around its new subsidies. Some subsidies are already in place, such as Restart and the Tasmanian Jobs Program, and others will start on 1 July, such as the youth unemployment wage subsidy and the long-term wage subsidy. Providers are concerned that they will lose some of the flexibility that they had in the Employment Pathway Fund.

I would ask the minister about the flexibility of the new 'flexible fund', which is what it is being called—the $1.2 billion fund. Can the minister confirm that the wage subsidies will have the same targets that were indicated when they were announced? Is the government going to monitor whether those targets will be reached and whether the flexibility that providers had when they were part of the Employment Pathway Fund will remain as part of the flexible funding pool for the wage subsidies?

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Assistant Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With regard to the employment facilitators, under the previous government they were scheduled to conclude. The particular facilitator in Geelong had only just started when Labor left office. We saw the special circumstances of Geelong with a major contraction in the employment situation in that area. Let me say that, of all of the other areas that the good member mentioned, they will benefit from a new employment service system. They will benefit from an employment service system that is focused on the delivering results. We are replacing the tired system that was mired in red tape, where there were a range of bureaucratic instruments that made the mind boggle—incredibly complex forms to be filled out and duplicate paper records being run alongside electronic records. It was a system in incredible need of an overall, and this government did that by putting in place a system that is highly focused on results and requires employment service providers to get job seekers a job. It requires employment service providers to build strong relationships with employers, otherwise they will not succeed.

Supporting the focus on results, we had a range of more flexible wage subsidies, allowing wage subsidies to be paid sooner and more flexibly, to meet the needs of employers. We had an end to training for training's sake, so that job seekers were not coming to the end of yet another course, putting another certificate in their shoebox and then sitting down in despair because there was no job attached. It is not in the best interests of a job seeker to cycle them through endless training which is not resulting in a job. So we focused very much on training—where necessary and where it is going to lead to a job.

With regard to the youth stream, we have the new national work experience program providing young people with four weeks work experience, probably but not necessarily in a commercial setting, allowing a young person to demonstrate to an employer just what they can do—the benefits that they could bring to a workplace—and perhaps that young job seeker could be eligible for a wage subsidy. So you could have four weeks' work experience, and then move into a subsidised job.

With regard to the youth employment strategy, we had a number of measures, including $212 million for the Transition to Work program, a program that basically has a work focus. We had programs in the past that were not work focused. Transition to Work is exactly as we said—

Ms Collins interjecting—

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is up to the chair.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Assistant Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am just getting warmed up.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can just table it.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Assistant Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A program that is focused on getting young people into work—wrap-around services that are going to assist young people. We also have $106 million for support for vulnerable job seekers, and we have a focus—

Ms Collins interjecting—

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the proposed—

The member for Franklin then left the chamber.

Good on you! You are a—

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Assistant Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will conclude my remarks.

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Now we do not have a quorum to put the question. We will suspend until 6.30pm.

Sitting suspended from 17:02 to 18:30

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Industry and Science Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $2,326,259,000

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise to speak about the budget for the Industry and Science portfolio, and what a wonderful portfolio it is. It will continue to support Australia's key scientific assets and build momentum in the existing industry initiatives aimed at strengthening Australia's economy and our international competitiveness. It continues the work started under the Industry Innovation and Competiveness Agenda which is I announced last year. The agenda set out a new approach for industry policy, with an emphasis on science, to foster innovation and research. We are putting science at the centre of industry policy. I should at this point welcome my parliamentary secretary, who has joined our team in the reshuffle since the last budget, and is doing an absolutely fantastic job, of course.

We want to have science at the centre of industry policy because it is through stronger links between industry and research that Australia will be to capitalise on the opportunities of the future. We are focused on building business capabilities to improve productivity and competitiveness, as well as stimulate innovation, entrepreneurship and of course jobs growth.

In this budget the government is providing almost $70 million in additional funding for Australia's leading scientific research organisations to build a world-class infrastructure that will create stronger connections between research and industry and maximise Australia's competitiveness. It is a strategic and targeted investment. The budget includes $49.1 million for ANTSO to manage Australia's radioactive waste produced specifically from nuclear medicine production and research in areas of national priority that benefit all Australians.

ANSTO's waste arises from the production of around 85 per cent of Australia's potentially lifesaving nuclear medicines—as well as neutrons to help Australia's industry solve complex problems and enable research into areas of national importance—and 30 per cent of the world's irradiated silicon. The budget also includes an investment so that ANTSO can increase its interim waste storage capacity pending the establishment of a national radioactive waste management facility and funding to enable the return of intermediate-level waste from the United Kingdom in accordance with an intergovernmental agreement.

The government has also committed $20.5 million to the 2016-17 year to ensure the continued operation of the. Australian Synchrotron. This is an important research infrastructure platform delivering groundbreaking scientific discoveries with benefits for all Australians. It is anticipated that the Victorian government, along with the New Zealand government, will also assist in the operating costs in 2016-17. Future ownership and long-term funding of the facility are to be considered by the Commonwealth following outcomes of the research infrastructure review currently underway.

In the budget we also announced the Home Insulation Program Industry Payment Scheme. This was established in response to recommendations of the report of the Royal Commission into the Home Insulation Program. It recognises the government's moral responsibility to the businesses which suffered an adverse financial impact as a direct result of the Home Insulation Program. The scheme will make payments to businesses which suffered an adverse financial impact when the program was cancelled unexpectedly in 2010. The scheme opened to applications on 1 June and will be open for applications for a period of six weeks. However, extensions will be provided to those businesses that are unable to complete their application in that time.

In addition to this, my portfolio will continue to implement the new direction for industry policy that the government announced last year through the Entrepreneurs' Infrastructure Program and the Industry Growth Centres Initiative. For example, I have announced reforms to the Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) Program to better coordinate connections between the industry growth centres and CRCs to achieve common goals. We are also implementing new measures to boost commercial returns from Australia's significant research effort of over $9 billion annually, supplied by the federal government.

We have also released a new national science and research priorities list to ensure our high-performing science, research and innovation system delivers a maximum benefit. Nine cross-disciplinary priorities are: food, soil and water, transport, cybersecurity, energy resources, advanced manufacturing, environmental change and health. These priorities will help our world-class science and research effort to reflect the needs of industry, the national economy and, of course the community.

The government will work with universities, research institutions and industry to identify projects and investment to address the priority areas. The government has a very clear vision for a strong industry sector and, along with that, a strong science sector as Australia maintains our focus on new jobs, new investment and making Australian industry more competitive.

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

There are some areas where, with the minister's indulgence, I would like to ask a series of questions in order to help inform both the House and the people of Australia on some areas of public policy of great interest. The minister is aware of our enduring interest in this place in the national radioactive waste facility first proposed for Muckaty about 10 years ago, and he will be aware of decisions made by traditional owners and a decision which was quite appropriately made by the federal government last year in the context of the next steps for the location of that radioactive waste facility.

We have heard of the funding that is available for ANSTO to deal with its waste issues in the production of medical isotopes, and we are also aware that in the third quarter of this year ANSTO will receive, or take into its own hands, custody of reprocessed material that will be stored at the ANSTO facility at Lucas Heights—appropriately, as it should be. At the other end of things, and at a much lower level of radioactive waste, there is the waste that had been earmarked for a facility such as that at Muckaty. The way in which the nation deals with the storage of this material is a matter of significant public interest. So I would like to ask the minister, if he can, to share with us the next steps in identifying a facility location. I understand that the site nomination process closed early in May, and I understand that the selection processes would now be well and truly progressed for next steps. So I would like to ask the minister if he can provide us with an update as to where that process is up to and what it is likely to look like over the course of the next few months.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Brand for his question. I also thank him for his bipartisan approach to many of the resource issues we face together. That has been one of the hallmarks of the operation of this government, the previous government and the Howard government: in this very important area in relation to resource development in Australia, we have been able to have a position which has enabled investor confidence and certainty in regard to policy and the development of those industries, which is now entering a different and perhaps difficult phase.

I highlight the fact that Australia has around 4,000 cubic metres of low-level radioactive waste and some 650 cubic metres of intermediate-level radioactive waste, resulting from some 60 years of medical research and industry activities. Unfortunately, much of this waste is stored in hundreds of locations around Australia. As well as that, as the shadow minister mentioned, the intermediate-level waste that has been sent overseas, totalling around 130 cubic metres, is being returned to Australia, and in the interim that waste will be stored at the ANSTO site.

In relation to his specific questions, on 2 March 2015, following the breakdown of the opportunity to progress the Muckaty site, I called for landholders across Australia to volunteer their land for consideration as a potential site for a national nuclear waste facility. The process closed, as the shadow minister mentioned, on 5 May 2015, with an encouraging number of nominations. I am afraid at this stage I cannot be specific about that number, as it is commercial-in-confidence, but certainly there was no shortage of applications from most states across Australia. I intend to identify a short list of potentially suitable sites in July 2015; that is literally next month. I look forward to being able to take those sites forward for detailed assessment during 2015-16. This process will run in parallel with the royal commission into nuclear that is being conducted in South Australia. Along with South Australia, other states that have nominated would likely require a change in some of the legislative processes, so there is quite a bit of work to be done at state level. Consultations with some states are going particularly well.

Once I have identified a short list, there will be extensive community consultation in regard to that short list and its potential suitable sites, and the consultation will continue throughout this project. A site will only be selected if it meets Australia's strict environmental and radiation protection regulatory requirements. A detailed business case for the national facility will be developed during 2016 in accordance with the government's Two Stage Capital Works Approval Process for Australian Government Construction Projects. The project will be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works prior to detailed design and construction. Under current time frames, the national facility may begin operating in the early 2020s.

Can I say, as someone who has been involved in this issue along with the current Minister for Foreign Affairs, who was at the time the Minister for Education and Science, that this has not been an easy road. Can I just say, though, that in progressing this current project we are receiving much better cooperation not only from the Labor Party in opposition but also, through consultation, from Senator Ludlam and the Greens. We intend to run a fully open and transparent process, and we intend to bring this process to a conclusion. It is simply not acceptable for a nation as technically and scientifically advanced as Australia to be storing nuclear waste in the basements of buildings in CBDs of cities around Australia or in shipping containers in carparks of hospitals. So we will fix this issue, and I hope that bipartisanship continues well into the future.

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

I have some questions to direct to the minister. Minister, electricity prices are always front of mind in my electorate. In fact you would have noticed that the recent New South Wales election was dominated by electricity issues, particularly whether or not to lease the New South Wales electricity network assets.

One of the arguments used in support of asset privatisation is that privately operated assets are often run more efficiently and result in cheaper electricity bills for customers. This government has always said that it will work hard to put downward pressure on electricity prices. We repealed the carbon tax, and in doing so we provided savings of around $500 a year to an average household.

I notice that new national rules that require electricity network prices to be set with the long-term interests of customers in mind mean that households and businesses in my home state of New South Wales, and also in the ACT, South Australia and Queensland, will see decreases to electricity bills from 1 July this year. I have no doubt that you have plans to keep chipping away at electricity prices to ensure that Australian households and businesses are not paying too much for their electricity. But there is one particular matter I would be interested to hear more about—that is, the national energy productivity plan, which was announced as part of the government's recently released energy white paper. The white paper announced an aspirational national productivity target of up to 40 per cent improvement in productivity by 2030 and a commitment to develop a national energy productivity plan.

Minister, can you please tell us how a productive energy sector contributes to a stronger economy? Can you give us an update on the development of this energy productivity plan? What information is considered when deciding a target, and what kind of opportunities are there for Australia to improve its productivity? How could improving our energy productivity contribute to our broader government goals, such as growing the economy or meeting an international emissions agenda?

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Eden-Monaro for his question. He is quite right; electricity prices are front of mind in households around Australia. In fact, discussion about the cost of electricity has replaced the conversation which existed in my earlier political career around the price of petrol. People now look at their electricity bills and they wonder how they can lower them. I have to give them credit; households are doing a fantastic job in embracing energy efficiency in their households—either through state policy or independently installing smart meters and energy efficient appliances. In my household we recently installed a front-loading washing machine. Along with incredible efficiency in terms of its energy consumption, its water efficiency is also worth noting.

This government takes this issue particularly seriously. One of the first things we did as a government—as the member for Eden-Monaro knows, and as I am sure his constituents still appreciate—was remove the carbon tax, saving households a very significant sum of money in relation to their electricity costs and their household bills. In specific terms in relation to the member's question, we will continue the issue of energy market reform, which is a challenging issue.

Without breaking the bipartisanship that I expressed earlier, I can say that it was one of my criticisms—if not my only criticism—that during the tenure of the previous Minister for Resources, Martin Ferguson, the issue of energy market reform did not progress as far as I would have hoped. I hoped that by the time I got back here it would have been all finished, but unfortunately that was not the case. There is still some way to go. We are looking at the contribution of a productive energy sector to a stronger economy. Energy productivity is a measure of economy value created in every unit of energy consumed, and it is an area that we continue to pursue.

Improving Australia's energy productivity can reduce costs for households and businesses, grow our economy, maintain our competitiveness and improve our sustainability. The more productive use of energy can also delay the need for new energy supply infrastructure, which in turn lowers the cost to users who would otherwise be paying for that infrastructure. The National Energy Productivity Plan, or NEPP, will include a work plan to progress both existing and new initiatives across the energy efficiency policy and energy market reform areas.

The Australian government will work with state and territory governments, and that is always a joy, but some states are more cooperative than others. Surprisingly, some Labor states are more cooperative than some coalition states. I have to tell you that has not changed in the 15 years since I first became a minister. The meetings are less entertaining and more productive, but there is still the occasional spat. We will work through the COAG council on energy during June 2015 to consider collaborative measures to support the work plan, as well as Commonwealth measures, particularly voluntary industry-led measures, which are also expected to be part of the work plan. Measures to improve energy productivity include traditional energy efficiency measures such as minimum standards, but also wider energy market reforms promoting efficient energy use, decisions and markets such as efficient pricing, servicing and competition.

In the area of opportunities for Australia to improve its energy productivity, the work plan for NEPP will include measures which support efficient decisions by consumers of all sizes, in all sectors, when selecting energy services such as smart meters—which I have mentioned—cost-reflected prices or time-of-use charging, as it is known, and access to information and labels. It will also support the development of better energy services through innovation and competition, such as reducing barriers to entry in the market for new technologies and service options. I have to say that there are some fantastic energy saving technologies and energy efficient appliances coming onto the market virtually every day. We will also ensure that efficient minimum services, including through standards for equipment, appliances and buildings, are made available.

Energy productivity measures can drive a range of wider benefits such as jobs in new services and health and labour productivity improvements in better buildings. Using energy more productively can reduce the amount of energy we use, resulting in low emissions from energy consumption.

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

I have a series of questions for the minister, some of which he may wish to take on notice and write back to me about. The first one deals with the ACCC inquiry into the east coast gas markets. Can the minister provide an update on the east coast gas market and the current ACCC inquiry? It is an important inquiry. It is an inquiry that has received deep bipartisan support, and its progress is important. I am pleased to hear the minister's continued strong support for markets and market solutions to our energy issues. Linked with that, the New South Wales government has, of course, challenged a Commonwealth regulator in its decision on network costs in New South Wales. This is a challenge which I have characterised as being a desire by the New South Wales government to 'fatten the pig before it is taken to market'. I would appreciate the minister's considered view of the Commonwealth's position on that matter, and hope that what we hear is that the Commonwealth will not be supporting the New South Wales government and will ask the New South Wales government to desist in its threats to that decision.

We are all aware of and concerned about the east coast gas price movements. One potential step in that process may be the North East Gas Interconnector, as we have often referred to it in public statements. Where are we with that? The energy white paper spoke of the need to conduct an assessment of Australia's energy security. Can the minister provide an update on the scope and timing of that assessment? In particular, the International Energy Agency stockholding requirements could place a crippling cost burden on Australia's transport fuel industry. I would be interested in the minister's consideration of that issue as, for me, it is a matter of concern that the IEA's stockholding requirement may place a very significant cost on the Australian economy and on transport users.

Finally, Minister, a matter which I know is dear to your heart and to mine: Geoscience Australia. I understand that, currently, Geoscience Australia has nine graduate positions and is planning to make 13 offers in the coming year. From what I understand, there is a very large number of applicants for these positions—around 150. Normally, we would be used to a figure of about a third of that, about 50. One hundred and fifty is a particularly high number. Does the minister believe that we have a sufficient number of current graduate positions in Geoscience Australia to support Geoscience's needs or can we look forward to increases in that number over the budgeted number of 13?

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the shadow minister for his questions. I will try to get through as many as I can in the time allocated. With regard to the ACCC inquiry, it is the government's desire to ensure that we have a clear and transparent gas marketing and transport system in Australia. The Minister for Small Business and I have engaged the ACCC in an inquiry to investigate that. It is not a witch-hunt. It is not our expectation that the commission will find any untoward activity, but we are letting the commission have a very good look at the situation because we are going to see fluctuations in the price of gas in Australia and we need to be sure that the market is working as it should. The issue paper in relation to the ACCC inquiry seeking industry input was released two weeks ago and we are keen to see industry participate in that as much as they can.

In terms of the shadow minister's suggestion that I ask the New South Wales government to desist, yes, I always ask the New South Wales government and any other government to do the right thing, but I have to say it has been one of my failures in political life. State governments have a mind of their own. In terms of their particular objections to the ruling of the AER, I express my total confidence in Paula Conboy, to the point where my money is on her. Whilst state governments and particularly their treasuries will do what they do—and I note the member's comments in relation to fattening the pig; I am sure that is not the case—what the AER will do is deliver lower electricity prices to New South Wales consumers and particularly households. Along with the abolition of the carbon tax, we are seeing significant decreases in the price of electricity in most states as a result. I have to congratulate the work of the AER.

With regard to the north-east interconnector, the connector from the Northern Territory to Mount Isa, I have an optimistic view on that. From my discussions with the Northern Territory government, they have a number of very credible proponents proposing to build that gas pipeline and proposing to build it at no cost to government, which is always music to my ears. The reality is that there is significant demand, particularly in New South Wales, where the CSG industry has been unable to progress in the spectacular, constructive and environmentally sensitive way that it has in Queensland. It is unlikely to see the advance of CSG in New South Wales in the short term and, as a result of that, we will be continuing to support the Northern Territory government in its endeavours to have that interconnector built. As I say, I am optimistic.

The member for Brand asked about the IEA and Australia's strategic reserves in compliance with the IEA. As he knows, as he was the minister who passed the hot potato to me when they left government, we were noncompliant in the last term of government, and our government is looking at a path back to ensure that we satisfy the requirements and remain a member of the IEA.

We have just had some discussions with the IEA in Paris—'we' being my department—and it is my understanding that the IEA is prepared to consider Australia's approach to this matter. It has the potential to be extremely expensive if we do not handle it carefully, and as a result of that there will be ongoing discussions. The reality is that Australia's change in production—the fall in oil production and, as is always expected, a rise in consumption—has meant that we have been noncompliant and have been, as I say, for quite some time.

The last question, with regard to Geoscience—I certainly understand the concern of the member. I do not envisage an increase in the number of places in Geoscience Australia for graduates.

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

Minister, it is a pleasure to see you here in the chamber. As you know, it could be argued that the resources industry has been the backbone of Australia's economy for the last decade or so. At least, it is inarguable that it has made an extraordinary contribution to our export earnings. In my state of Western Australia particularly the impact of the iron ore and the oil and gas industries has been transformational. I would like to note your keen interest in the Western Australian resource sector and industry over the many years that you have been in parliament. I heard you compliment the member for Brand and the previous minister, Martin Ferguson, both of whom I considered to be friends of the resource sector in Western Australia, but unfortunately their party at the time introduced the mining tax and displayed their party's overall attitude towards the mining and resource sector in Western Australia.

I noted that in your previous answer to the member for Eden-Monaro you spoke about electricity prices. I thought the minister might be interested to know that in my previous life as a commercial air conditioning supplier, one of the things we tried to introduce into Australia in the 1980s was an economy cycle for package equipment on shopping centres. Unfortunately, at that particular stage, electricity prices were so cheap that there would have been a seven-year turnaround before they could actually recover the cost of the economy cycle system. Many employers would say it was easier to reduce staff levels than it was to look at reducing electricity costs because it was not a high cost for the companies at that particular time.

As I said, in my state of Western Australia, the impact of the iron ore and the oil and gas industries in particular has been transformational. As we speak, the world's first floating LNG plant is under construction prior to its deployment off the coast of Western Australia. This exciting new technology will render recoverable smaller and/or more distant resources that were previously quarantined by these limitations. Meanwhile, on the east coast, coal has continued to generate massive export earnings and we have recently seen the first of three new LNG plants on Queensland's Curtis Island commence exporting. I know you probably have an even deeper interest in Queensland than you do in Western Australia, but as the federal minister I guess your attention has to be in all states.

These plants sourcing their feedstock from coal seam gas are also pioneering, world first, and further demonstrate the confidence that industry has in Australia as an investment destination. However, the resources industry's cyclical nature has been clearly evident over the past decade, with an enormous rise in commodity prices and a spate of major capital projects in the LNG, coal and iron ore industries in particular. This boom period has now clearly passed and those prices have dropped very significantly, just as the project construction process is concluding, along with the jobs of those engaged to give effect to it.

Minister, what is your view on the short- and medium-term prospects for Australia's resources industry? What actions is the government taking and/or planning to take through this budget, or any other government measures, to ameliorate the adverse impacts of these changes? Is there a future for Australia's coal industry given the increased intensity across the world of anti-coal activism, not only among its traditional critics but also from the investment community?

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank my good friend the member for Swan, and I also thank him for the tremendous support he gives to the resources industry not only in Western Australia but also, of course, throughout Australia. As he well knows, there are other states that mine resources other than Western Australia. Of course, Queensland is a very significant resource state, as are other states.

In relation to the floating LNG technology, I had the opportunity to visit the shipyard where Prelude is being constructed. It is a massive piece of engineering, which I am sure my parliamentary secretary, as an engineer, would greatly appreciate. To give members some idea of the size of this, the structure, if it was placed in front of the Sydney Harbour Bridge in Sydney Harbour, would actually shield the entire bridge. It would cover it from one end to the other and also cover the top of the arch. It is the latest in technology and Australia is the only place in the world that is currently deploying or has deployed the three LNG technologies—floating LNG, LNG from coal seam gas, with the first train being operated by QGC in Queensland, and of course the traditional LNG natural gas technology that we have seen built in Western Australia and Darwin, and there is further construction going on at the moment.

As the member for Swan quite rightly points out, the energy and resources sector is a key contributor to the national economy and generates crucial export revenue and, more importantly, keeps Australians in jobs and pays significant taxes and royalties. In fact, the previous government tried to pretend that the industry did not pay its fair share of taxes, but it certainly paid more taxes than most industries in Australia in a percentage sense, bearing in mind that, along with company tax and the like, it also pays a very significant royalty to most state governments.

The Australian resources and energy sector will continue to be challenged over the short term. It is no secret that the commodity prices have fallen significantly. Many of those commodities are still very profitable to mine. Whilst there has been a lot of discussion about iron ore prices in the media of late, the reality is that large companies like Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton are making significant profits on their costs. That industry is a very sustainable industry.

Perhaps the picture is not quite so bright in the coal area but, again, the industry is driving efficiencies and costs of production cuts in that area that will see the industry be maintained. It is interesting to note that exports of coal out of Queensland were said today to be at record levels. Australia will be a key supplier of mineral and energy commodities to the world and a reliable supplier well into the future. We have seen very significant investment in all of these sectors, but the reality is that now we are going to see a very significant increase in production as a result of those investments.

The member asked me what our government is doing in contrast to the previous government. We have removed the mining tax and the carbon tax. Why you would tax a sector that is holding up the rest of the economy is beyond me, but the Labor Party has never found something it cannot tax. We have also established the Exploration Development Incentive. That was the second failure of my predecessor, Martin Ferguson, who promised a flow-through share scheme. It must have just slipped through his fingers.

Opposition Member:

An opposition member interjecting—

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, we are not. We have put in place the Exploration Development Incentive, which has been welcomed by industry, and of course we have worked to see the industry growth centres integrated into the resource sector.

We will remain the largest exporter of metallurgical coal, which is a non-substitutable raw material for steel making. We will continue to see coal remain as a dominant energy source globally. Whilst there may be some reduction in the OECD, predicted to be one-third by 2040, coal demand in India, China and South-East Asia is projected to more than offset that decline. Australia, and particularly Queensland and New South Wales, will continue to meet that demand.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is good that the minister has such a good memory because he would remember the Rudd government securing investment for the Cruze, a small car to be manufactured at the Holden factory in my electorate. He will remember coming for a tour when the company was considering future investment at that plant, and he will remember the devastating day for those workers when the government chased Holden out of the country along with all of the investment they were going to provide. He would no doubt also remember, I think it was on 10 March, when he, or someone else, briefed The Advertiser that $900 million from the Automotive Transformation Scheme would be spent in South Australia and that that was going to reassure the industry and keep stability in our industry. No doubt he would remember on 20 April when Holden announced the reduction of 270 jobs—redundancies that are now flowing through. People in my electorate are being made redundant, are out of work, at a critical time in their lives. Many of these workers are not old men or old women. They are in the prime of their working lives and they have families and investments in South Australia. No doubt he would remember on 11 March James Massola writing in the Fairfax press a headline which said, '"This is an own goal": Ian Macfarlane accused of bungling car industry assistance announcement.' In that story, an unnamed minister—as is so often the case with this government because the cabinet leaks like a sieve—said of your performance:

This is an own goal. It is complete incompetence.

Then:

"We won the war [on industry assistance] but Macfarlane was an unhappy general," the minister continued in a clear reference to the losing fight Mr Macfarlane led in the early days of the Abbott government to keep Holden and Toyota manufacturing in Australia.

It is a pretty devastating story for the minister, I would have thought. So, given all of this history, Minister, perhaps you can let us know, the parliament and the people of South Australia, what your intention is with regard to the Automotive Transformation Scheme. How much of it will be spent in South Australia and how much of it will simply be returned to the Treasury as savings to prop up your budget?

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was a huge amount of hypothetical in that question. I will do my best to address it. I do wonder at times how people from the Labor Party can ever rise to their feet and criticise our government when tonight of course, at 8.30 pm—and by God I hope we are out of here by then—I will be sitting downstairs watching a completely incompetent—

Honourable Member:

An honourable member interjecting—

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask the member to desist.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is the one who raised the political issue and I am responding to it.

Honourable members interjecting—

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask members to desist please.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I look forward to the factual recounting of the performance of the Labor Party at 8.30 pm tonight on the ABC. I am sure—

An honourable member: What about the workers at Holden?

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did ask members opposite to desist from interrupting the Minister while he is addressing the question and, as to your comment back to me, to the member for Chisholm—

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And to the interjection, Madam Deputy Speaker, I—

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Minister. Just one minute. The comment from the member for Chisholm was reflecting on the chair and I would ask you to desist from doing that. Thank you very much, and I give the call back to the minister.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am always happy to answer questions in the spirit they are asked by the shadow minister for resources. This particular member asked questions that were vague, inaccurate and highly political. I am not responding politically. I am just saying to do yourself a favour and watch the ABC at 8.30 tonight.

With regard to the performance of the previous Labor government and the claims made by the member, the reality is that at no stage did the Labor Party insist on the one thing that was crucial to the survival of the car industry, and that is that the money they sprayed at them—ineffectively, I have to say—caused the companies to perform at an international standard by exporting their vehicles, with the exception of Toyota. As to the suggestion that there were significant plans by any manufacturer other than Toyota for another model, I think that is sheer speculation.

I totally reject any suggestion that our government did anything but support the car industry during that time, and of course it was GM's decision in Detroit to end production of Holden. That has been quoted time and again by senior executives in GM, including most recently at the Detroit motor show earlier this year, that no action by the government in terms of supplying further assistance would have changed the decision by General Motors to close production.

The member asks about the announcement in Adelaide recently in relation to the ATS. I am going to stick to the facts, not the media speculation and unnamed sources et cetera. The reality is that that announcement resulted in $683.4 million more being made available to the car industry. The member asks how much of that money the car industry used. Well, that is entirely dependent on the car industry. The more Australian-built cars they sell, the more money we will give them. There is more than enough money there—as I said, an extra $683.4 million. That is something I am extraordinarily proud of, because I was the minister, of course, who put this car plan in place.

When I was last minister I put in place a $4.3 billion plan for the car industry—a plan which gave the car industry the opportunity to be an internationally competitive force. They did their best; I think they make a fantastic product and the workers there should be proud of that. But decisions made in headquarters in Detroit, and finally in Japan, have seen this industry progress to a position where it is not going to exist in Australia post-2017. No-one is sadder about that than I am. No-one has been more patient about the car industry as a minister than I have—or no living person, anyway, because John Button certainly was. But in terms of the decisions that were made, the reality is now that Australian production has fallen to a point where international owners have made those decisions.

We will support the workers in South Australia. There are a number of significant programs in place, including the growth fund of $155 million targeted at the industry to assist it in that transformation, and we will do everything we can to assist workers during a very difficult time as they transition to new professions.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, as a fellow Queenslander—and I am certain you will be watching a particular game of rugby league tomorrow night and supporting the right side and the right team indeed!—you are no doubt aware that my electorate of Hinkler is a diverse electorate and a shining example of Queensland ingenuity and determination. Like many of our neighbouring Queensland electorates, we have made the full use of the natural blessings of our region. As a result, we have strong and vibrant businesses operating in food and agribusiness, mining and advanced manufacturing services. I know the minister is aware of some of these organisations and companies, but I would like to give him a brief review of what is going on in my electorate.

I am sure that the minister is aware of the announcement by Knauf Australia to build an advanced manufacturing plant at the Bundaberg Port, but he may not be aware that the development approval actually came from Gladstone Ports Corporation in recent weeks. This is a fantastic announcement: some $70 million worth of investment that will create at least 60 to 70 long-term jobs and some 200 jobs in the construction of this facility.

We have organisations like Bundaberg Walkers Engineering Ltd. I am sure the minister is aware that it is struggling with high electricity prices. It is a real concern for them. There is also Bundaberg Brewed Drinks, the 2013 Queensland Exporter of the Year.

But there are a number of horticultural producers and manufacturers, which the minister may well not be aware of—organisations like Austchilli. Austchilli started from a concept by a cane farmer by the name of David De Paoli. Mr De Paoli now runs an organisation that grows eight different varieties of chillies that are hand-picked every day to ensure year-round supply for consumers. Since 1995, they have field tested over 200 varieties of chillies from all over the world to find the best on the basis of flavour, heat, colour, yield and consistency.

As well as growing chillies, they grow a wide variety of herbs that they value-add to and manufacture a range of products from, including a new product called AvoFresh made from avocados—so successful, Minister, that they cannot actually source enough raw product to meet demand. They export fresh and packaged food to 10 overseas markets. Their products were also featured recently on the hit reality show, My Kitchen Rules. They are a fabulous provider—the hero of the dish, I have been told!

Farmfresh Fine Foods is another second-generation family company operating with Australian food technology. They manufacture; they supply chargrilled and roasted vegetables to the domestic and international food service industry, including airlines, global fast food chains and cafe and restaurant chains—unlike the 'Made in France' products that I saw on the flight this week, which were very disappointing.

Urangan Fisheries process professionally and export a wide variety of fresh and frozen seafood, including the world-renowned Hervey Bay scallops, which I am sure everyone in the room has heard of—I am sure you have, Madam Deputy Speaker.

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

I have enjoyed a few, yes, thank you!

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are a fabulous product that they export to Asia, the United States of America and the EU, and they have been doing this for over 10 years. Urangan Fisheries are supported by seven prawn and scallop-catching vessels owned by Hervey Bay based sister company, Shulz Fisheries. A well known local, Nick Shulz has been in the region all of his life—a great operator. And, of course, you cannot go past the Australian Ocean King Prawn Company, another family business, supplying premium quality seafood out of Hervey Bay for local and export markets for over 25 years. They have a fleet of six trawlers—modern, EU-accredited steel vessels, equipped with state-of-the-art refrigeration systems. They land a combined total of 300 to 400 tonnes of prawns all year for the export market. It is a fabulous product and it is great that it is in my electorate.

Minister, I note that these businesses cover much of the five areas identified as areas of competitive strength which are the focus of the Australian government's Industry Growth Centres. As the local representative of a region that has firsthand experience of the opportunities created by investment and innovation in these key sectors, I am particularly excited on behalf of my electorate to follow the progress as the Australian government implements these growth centres. Under the Industry Growth Centres Initiative in the 2015-16 budget, I understand that the Department of Industry and Science funded some $225 million to deliver this exciting new initiative. I also note that this is an increase—an increase!—on the initial announcement from October 2014 of $188.5 million for this initiative.

We look forward to grasping every opportunity to strengthen our local economy in my electorate of Hinkler, particularly in these areas of competitive strength. Can you please provide the chamber with an update on the initiative and tell us how the Industry Growth Centres are going to put science at the centre of industry policy and help companies like those in my electorate—like Bundaberg Brewed Drinks, Knauf Australia and Bundaberg Walker Engineering Ltd—to drive the growth and jobs of the future, not only in my electorate but across Australia?

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Hinkler for an extraordinarily constructive and informative question. What a wonderful job the member for Hinkler is doing in his electorate.

I happen to know this electorate reasonably well. I grew up not far—well, not far if you are a country boy!—from Bundaberg. We occasionally went over there because in those days Bundaberg did, and still does, have a reputation for excellence in engineering—and perhaps for one other thing in those days! But these days, of course, it has broadened its drinks list out to include Bundaberg Brewed Drinks. Bundaberg Brewed Drinks is a wonderful company that puts product out, and not only right around Australia. I happened to catch up with its CEO on a flight back from America and I asked him what he was doing in California. He said he had just been over to sell ginger beer and drinks into America. It is a great exporting company.

As with everything in the manufacturing and industry space in Australia, we need to capitalise on our export opportunities. The member noted, quite rightly, that in the budget just released we have in fact increased the funding for growth centres to $225 million. The Industry Growth Centre Initiative provides a new approach for industry policy. It builds on Australia's strengths in key sectors, and the member has clearly identified food processing and agribusiness. It is great news about the DA for Knauf Australia in his electorate.

But in the area of food processing and agribusiness we have a specific growth centre, which is headed up by Peter Schultz. That growth centre will provide not only the existing businesses in Hinkler with the opportunity to collaborate, to develop new products and to get into the global supply chain but also potential new industries that neither the member nor I have even thought about.

The growth centre initiative is the centrepiece of the government's strategy to guide industry in the new era of growth—a new era of investment and jobs—and we will do that by focusing on the areas which, as the member identified, are where Australia has a key natural advantage.

There are five industry growth centres. I have mentioned the food and agribusiness one. The Advanced Manufacturing Growth Centre is headed up by Andrew Stevens, who is well known for his work in the ICT area in Australia. Bronwyn Evans heads up the Medical Technologies and Pharmaceuticals Growth Centre. Again, particularly in the area of medical technologies, Australia excels. Everyone knows about Cochlear, but there are a whole range of products that Australia has developed there as well. The Mining Equipment, Technology and Services Growth Centre is headed by Elizabeth Lewis-Gray, an extraordinary woman who has played a key role in the development of the MET sector in Australia. Australia is the world leader in exporting mining and equipment technology all over the world. As well as that, Ken Fitzpatrick heads up the Oil, Gas and Energy Resources Growth Centre.

These growth centres will forge better links between industry and Australia's world-class researchers to maximise return on the Australian government's $9.2 billion annual investment in science and research. As the parliamentary secretary knows, we have some of the best scientists in the world. We have a great opportunity in terms of the products that they are working on to commercialise. By getting them to collaborate with world-class businesses, such as those identified by the member for Hinkler, I am confident in terms of our potential to play an important role in global supply chains going forward.

The growth centres are headed up by an overarching board. John Grill is the chair of that, along with Catherine Livingstone, Andrew Liveris, the most senior Australian-born CEO in the world, and, of course, Carolyn Hewson. I particularly want to thank John for his unselfish involvement in these growth centres. John has a distinguished career in business in Australia. He is a well-known philanthropist in terms of supporting science and research in Australia. But his commitment to this is without comparison. He has done an extraordinary job. The government is confident that this will deliver what we need to keep industry competitive in the future.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was just looking through the minister's website; it does have some really good pictures up of his tour of GM Holden on 2 October 2013. They are still up there. I remember touring the plant with him and many other Liberal senators and Liberal backbenchers. I think the member for Hindmarsh was good enough to arrive. Amongst all of his attacks about the ABC, my party and all the rest of it, I did note one thing that the minister said about exports. In particular, there are a couple of questions I have. First of all, as the cabinet deliberations went on between the minister's tour of the GM plant on 2 October and the announcement of closure on 12 December, did that delay affect the company's decision? Did those internal deliberations of the cabinet and the battle that he fought with the Treasurer and others affect the company's decision and his opinion?

I have another question. In the announcement by Mike Devereux from Holden about the company, they talked about a perfect storm. One of the factors in that perfect storm was the price of the Australian dollar which, I think, at the time was around $1.07—around that mark. It had been there for quite some time. It was, I think, one of the very real problems affecting manufacturing in not just cars but also wine, or anybody else who was manufacturing and exporting at that time. It was a very big consideration in their economic performance. Given that the dollar is now at 77c, does the minister agree that we have come out of the other side of that perfect storm that Australian manufacturing had been facing? Does he consider the fact that if the company and the government were considering the same set of circumstances today they might well make a different decision, and that manufacturing might well have continued in Australia if the decisions in cabinet had been different and if people had been able to look a little bit further down the track on the Australian dollar? They are the very real questions I am asking of him.

I am asking his opinion about the time line on which the government made decisions at that point and its inability to see past that perfect storm which was making car manufacturing and exporting very difficult. We know that if the dollar falls below 90c then car exports can occur very effectively to, say, the police car market in the United States. We know that many police forces in the United States wanted to buy the Holden Caprice that was modified for the police car market. We know that the only thing that was making them uncompetitive in those markets was the value of the Australian dollar, which was a temporary thing. I would be very interested to know the minister's opinion. If we were making those decisions now, and if the company were making those decisions now, does he think that things might well be different?

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I have to say I admire persistence in any creed, and the member for Wakefield is certainly persistent in asking hypothetical questions. Can I just say with regard to the government's position that the decision was made entirely by GM. It was entirely uninfluenced by anything the government said, did or potentially could do; in fact, we were advised by the management of GM in Detroit that anything we potentially could do would not have influenced their decision at all. That coincides with the information that I received privately. I am not going to divulge the sources of that information—

Mr Champion interjecting—

I will try and answer the question, Madam Deputy Speaker.

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

Thank you, yes. Could we have the answer? Thank you.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He does need to stop interjecting. He has had his question. In terms of the dollar, an industry that involves itself in the export market deals with fluctuations in the dollar. During my time as minister I have seen the dollar as low as 48c and, as the member said, almost touching $1.20. The decision by General Motors in Detroit is a decision that was made by them without consultation with the government, and it was based on their own facts. I am not privy to the facts which they based their decision on. I am privy to the public statements made by General Motors in relation to the fact that nothing they could have asked this government to do would have changed that decision. It was a decision which, obviously, General Motors had made their mind up to make. They made their decision. This government responded to that decision and the subsequent decision. I know it was extraordinarily difficult for Toyota to cease production in Australia. Australia was the first country in which Toyota built an overseas assembly line. I have visited the Toyota plant in Altona, and the member for Wakefield and I visited the plant in Adelaide, and I know that the workers at both those plants took enormous pride in the vehicles they were producing—and can I say: they are fantastic vehicles.

The unfortunate reality is that as the market in Australia changed, and as the market tastes of consumers in Australia changed, there simply was not the demand for the vehicles being produced by GMH in Adelaide. We have seen those numbers trending down for a long time, and currency fluctuations may or may not have influenced the decision by GM, but the reality is that we are at a point in Australia where only around one in 10 Australians purchase cars that were built here.

We have reacted to the decision by GM and the subsequent decision by Toyota's parent in Japan by putting in place the industry growth fund and by working with governments of both persuasions in both Victoria and South Australia to ensure that we do everything we can to allow the component industries, in particular, in the car industry to transition to new manufacture. I had the opportunity last week in Adelaide to visit a company called Precision Engineering that is diversifying into the solar industry—not just diversifying into the solar industry but actually doing it using Australian technology developed by that extraordinarily eminent organisation, CSIRO.

That technology is being exported into Japan. So we are seeing the transition of component companies to other areas. We are also making money available to retrain workers who will be made redundant by the end of the auto industry and give them the opportunity to take up jobs in new areas. As well as that, we are encouraging companies to come and invest. We have been overwhelmed with the response to that. We have seen very significant applications in that regard. We continue to assist the industry through the ATS. As I said to the member on the last question, we have made a very significant increase in terms of the money available: over $680 million.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I understand that in the 2014-15 budget, under the Entrepreneurs Infrastructure Program, the Department of Industry and Science was funded to deliver a Single Business Service to help achieve efficiencies and reduce red tape. As I understand it, the Single Business Service streamlines access to essential information for all Australian businesses. It is delivered through an improved website and contact centre, as well as AusIndustry's national facilitation network. The Single Business Service enables businesses of all sizes to efficiently find the information and services they require across all levels of government, including compliance information, insights into business improvement strategies and essential information on planning, starting and running a business. The Single Business Service can also link businesses to specific Australian Government assistance programs like the Entrepreneurs Infrastructure Program and the research and development tax incentives. The feedback from my constituents in Moore is that this program delivered by AusIndustry has seen a marked improvement in the delivery of business advice and in program delivery.

I note that in the 2015-16 budget the department is funded, along with the Australian Business Register and ASIC, to deliver elements of a new streamlined business registration interface and components of the new Digital Transformation Office. Whilst reviewing the business.gov.au website I have also noticed extensive information on the small business package. Minister, given the growth of the Single Business Service, would you advise the chamber of the success of this measure?

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Moore for his question and say what a wonderful job he is doing as the member replacing a very dear friend of mine, Mal Washer. Mal and I came into this parliament together. We had rooms side by side up in the north wing, as we called it. Those of us who remember Mal also remember Gloria Riley with great fondness. I take this opportunity to express my condolences to Gloria's family and acknowledge what a wonderful friend she was not only to Mal but also to the constituents who came into the electorate office in Moore. Mal was a wonderful member, but the current member is doing a fine job.

In response to his question, the Single Business Service, which was implemented by the Abbott government, is successfully enabling Australia's 2.1 million businesses to access essential information and services that they need to start, run and grow their operation. We have an extraordinary Minister for Small Business in our government. Those 2.1 million businesses are more than ably represented by what is undoubtedly one of the most enthusiastic ministers for small business I have seen for quite some time. I say that as a previous Minister for Small Business; that is where I started my ministerial career. The minister does a fantastic job. The Single Business Service point has effectively streamlined resources for businesses through one website, and that website—I am never one to miss an opportunity to publicise it—is business.gov.au. As well as that, there is one contact centre and one outreach network, which is of course that wonderful entity, AusIndustry, which does a fantastic job for businesses in Australia. Businesses and business intenders can now find what they need when they need it on popular topics such as starting a business, registration and licences. That allows them to cut through the red tape, which of course is a pledge of our government, saving time and money. The consolidated channels also assure the government that the services are being delivered in the most effective manner.

Businesses are using Single Business Service in large volumes. In the first 11 months of operation, there have been more than 10.8 million unique page views to business.gov.au—a substantial increase; in fact, an increase of 25.4 per cent over the period in the previous 12 months. The contact centre has taken over 71,000 phone calls, emails and web chats—an even larger increase on the previous year of around 43 per cent. Further enhancements to the contact centre web presence and ICT infrastructure will be implemented over the forward estimates. These will include more tailored online customer features and a consumer relationship management solution. Single Business Service is also working to improve program design and delivery through its centre of excellence.

The Entrepreneurs' Infrastructure Program, which was also implemented by this government, is delivering through the Single Business Service. It offers practical support for businesses. It provides expert assistance from a national network of more than 100 private sector advisers for cofunded commercialisation grants, research connections and collaboration opportunities. As at 31 May 2015, almost 3,000 services and around 500 cofunded grants totalling $23.3 million have been approved. The Single Business Service is helping Australians understand and access the government's Growing Jobs and Small Business package, and specific small-business information pages established on business.gov.au have seen some 280,000 unique visits. In terms of business.gov.au, it will become a single online portal for streamlined business registration initiatives which were announced as part of the Growing Jobs and Small Business package. As well as that, the department is playing a leading role in the digital transformation agenda.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I have several questions and it is clear that I will not be able to get to them. I was thinking that perhaps we should revert to the House standing orders, where we only have three minutes to answer questions. Minister, I fully accept your understanding of the auto industry throughout this country. You would be well aware of the impact that the impending closure of car-making in Australia is having, particularly in communities in South Australia and Victoria. Indeed, the impacts are already being felt and job losses have already begun to occur. With respect to the Manufacturing Transition Grants Program, I understand that, of the 19 successful projects that were given grants, one was from South Australia and only three were from Victoria. Can you advise why that was the case? Can you also advise which other applicants from South Australia and Victoria applied for funding and why they were rejected? Can you also advise, with respect to the Next Generation Manufacturing Investment Program, which I understand was announced in December 2013, why it has taken so long for an announcement that any project has been successful in getting funding?

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Makin for his question. I say to him that the government and I as minister are particularly aware of the impacts of the closure of the auto industry, as said earlier. My involvement with the car industry goes back a very long time to 2001, when I inherited a car plan that was pioneered by a previous member for Ryan, Minister John Moore. As I said, we put in place a very significant $4.3 billion program under the ATS to ensure that the industry was able to look at every opportunity. We know that, unfortunately, that did not happen and the industry announced, of its own volition, the fact that it was closing.

The member asked about components of the $150 million growth fund, which our government launched, as I said earlier, in response to issues in relation to the closure of the auto manufacturing industry in Australia. We announced that on 30 April 2014. There are key elements to the growth fund, which totals $155 million. There is a $30 million skills and training program to help automotive workers find new jobs. There is a $15 million extension and modification to the Automotive Industry Structural Adjustment Program to help automotive workers find new jobs when they are retrenched. Both of those programs are up and going. There is a $20 million Automotive Diversification Program to help the auto supply chain firms with their diversification. The member for Makin asked questions in relation to that. Those questions, in the main, are commercial-in-confidence, but I can say that, in the awarding of grants to applicants, it is done simply on the basis of which grants are the best. In its operation, that scheme has also been very successful.

The member also asked about the $60 million Next Generation Manufacturing Investment Program. My department is currently considering applications in relation to that. Based on those considerations, we will be making an announcement in the near future regarding the successful applicants.

As well as that, $30 million in the Regional Infrastructure Program has been allocated, but I have not yet received the commensurate sign-off from the respective state governments. I hope that those governments get on board and realise that communities, as the member for Makin identified, are feeling the impact of these impending closures, and that we are in a position to assist those communities to provide opportunities and infrastructure to assist their workforce affected by this closure.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Industry and Science. Minister, the news last week that Alinta was closing its Flinders power stations—both Playford and Northern, maybe by March next year and certainly by March 2018—has sent shock waves through the Port Augusta community, a city of about 14,000 at the top of the Spencer Gulf, and Leigh Creek, a purpose-built mining town owned by the government 250 kilometres north with a township of about 500 people. In Port Augusta, 185 direct jobs will be lost, and in Leigh Creek, 235 direct employees will lose their jobs. Obviously, many more jobs will be lost with associated contracting industries in the broader community as the ripple effect works its way through.

Last Friday, following the surprise announcement in Thursday's The AdvertiserI think it was intended that the story would go out on Friday, but such are secrets—I met in Port Augusta with the state member for Stuart, Dan van Holst Pellekaan; the mayor, Sam Johnson; Business Port Augusta's David Versteeg; and the council CEO, John Banks. We discussed a range of ramifications that are not immediately obvious, including the loss of a large slice of council rates and the maintenance of Bird Lake. For those who do not know about Bird Lake, Bird Lake fronts up to Highway 1 and is an overflow pond of the cooling system. Significant groundworks have gone in around it to beautify it and attract birds into the area. Of course, if the power station does not exist and water is not pumped, it will dry out and become a stinking mess on the southern side of Port Augusta. The council has also anticipated a figure of almost $6 million that they expect to receive in the next 12 months or so over land development in the area, which would appear to be highly unlikely at this time.

Alinta, as a company, has made an admirable commitment to the nature of its departure from Port Augusta, including fully honouring the workers' redundancy packages, worth $75 million, and spending an estimated $100 million for the clean-up and restoration of both of the Flinders power stations—that is, Northern and Playford stations—and the Leigh Creek mine. They have also committed resources to counselling, career advice and assisting the adjustment of their workers. This company is being a model citizen on this issue, and we could not ask for much more. I thank the minister in particular for meeting with Sam Johnson, the Port Augusta mayor, and the CEO, John Banks, on Monday morning. He also met with a very exciting prospect in the area at the moment, Sundrop Farms, and I thank him for his time and consideration of the issues put before him.

There are two proponents of renewable energy projects in the area at the moment, and the government has a number of avenues from which it may be able to provide assistance, including the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, ARENA and the renewable energy target. I look forward to the further development of those proposals, and of course my door is always open to try to assist them in developing those proposals and to provide any assistance that I possibly can to help them.

The reason Alinta is closing its doors is that it is simply not possible in the current market for them to operate profitably. In fact, they have lost $100 million over the past four years on generation—that is almost $½ million a month. At the same time, they have invested $200 million in the operation, trying to bring it back to profit. All of that capital is now lost. I have been predicting the likelihood of such an outcome for some years in public and in this place and posing the question as to how the South Australian electricity grid would cope if such a situation came to pass. In my opinion it is an entirely predictable and inevitable result of the RET that perhaps got a little bit in front of where it was supposed to be in that it was meant to provide the new generation electricity as renewable into the grid when in fact it has replaced and forced out the bottom-end providers.

I have two questions for the minister. What will withdrawal of the Flinders power stations do to the consistency, reliability and price of electricity in South Australia? And what do you identify as the best opportunities for the Port Augusta community going forward?

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank my good friend the member for a Grey for his questions, and I am going to be brief in my answer so as to allow further questions. The South Australian energy supply situation is in good shape. As the member identifies, we have a large oversupply of electricity in the national energy market and South Australia's renewable energy penetration is around 40 per cent, which is the second highest anywhere in Australia. Importantly, South Australia is connected to the national grid, which means it can draw power from across the border if it needs to. We need to be mindful of the fact that given the way the grid is managed it should be able to cope with the challenges that may present as a result of Alinta closing.

In terms of the Port Augusta area—and I did enjoy meeting the mayor, a person of great enthusiasm and I have to say optimism in terms of the challenges they are facing—we as a government are investing around $2.2 billion in industry programs, which of course South Australia will be the beneficiary of. As I have just said, we have $155 million in the growth fund, of which South Australia is a significant beneficiary, along with Victoria. Those two states are receiving all of that. South Australia will, as a result of the changes going on, need to strengthen and diversify its economy, and I know that we as a government will work to that and I hope the South Australian state government does the same. In our budget we have provided a significant boost to the small business sector, which includes those small businesses in Port Augusta, and we will work with the South Australian government to put out new opportunities in South Australia.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, thank you for making the time to take my question. Minister, I noted your response to my earlier question. In respect of the Manufacturing Transition Program, can you at least advise how many applications were received from South Australia and Victoria for funds from that program? I appreciate you may not wish to name them, but you might be able to provide a response to the question of how many there are.

Minister, today's announcement that BAE Australia has decided not to respond to the Abbott government's request for tender for the replacement of the Pacific patrol boat is further bad news for Australia's shipbuilding industry. I understand that the company cited the Abbott government's timing of the program as the biggest challenge facing the maritime business. I understand that BAE Australia also said the Abbott government needs to accelerate the Future Frigate Program, along with a plan that supports continuous production.

Minister, what role do you have in the procurement of naval vessels as Minister for Industry? Can you advise whether there will be any effort made to ensure: firstly, that there is not a 'valley of death'; and, secondly, that we stop the loss of skills that are vital to the industry which will inevitably occur if there is not a continuous build of submarines or Navy ships? Finally, can you provide any advice whatsoever in regard to the replacement submarine contract—in particular, whether any decision has been made in respect of who that contract will be awarded to?

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I again thank the member for Makin. I will be brief, not through any disrespect to his questions. I cannot divulge the number of applications or the number of successful application in relation to the next generation manufacturing investment program. I will do so when we make that announcement.

In terms of the shipbuilding industry and submarines, we are currently in the competitive evaluation process, which will run for some time as yet; and no decision has been made with respect to whether submarines will be built. As the Minister for Industry, I am involved in the discussions that the government has at a very high level in relation to the shipbuilding industry, and I remain optimistic in terms of its future.

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

My question is to the parliamentary secretary. As she is aware, the Australian Institute of Marine Science is one of the key agencies in my electorate. It is doing very good work in terms of science based research and work on the reef. Certainly, they are putting out some good facts that counter the extreme Green groups. I am wondering about that agency and other agencies. Will the parliamentary secretary detail how the government is investing in these key science agencies so that we continue to produce world-class research?

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Dawson for his question. As we have limited time left in this consideration in detail, I will be very brief, but there are a couple of things I would like to put on the record in responding to the member for Dawson's question.

It is very important to note that we are a government that is committed to world-class research. The Australian Institute of Marine Science is certainly a key agency for this government. We are investing around $9 billion in science, research and innovation across all of the government in this year alone. That is a significant investment we are making.

Briefly, in the time available, I would like to comment that on Sunday AIMS had its open day in Townsville. Specifically, in relation to the member for Dawson, there were a number of people who spoke to me at that open day and who commented very favourably on the very fine work you are doing in the electorate. AIMS will benefit from the government's investment of $169 million over the forward estimates, with funding increasing year on year. That is a very good outcome for the Australian Institute of Marine Science.

There are probably two parts to the work that AIMS does that we need to note. Firstly, it is world-class research work that it is doing. It has some fantastic facilities, based just outside Townsville but also around Australia. It certainly has the SeaSim—the sea simulator—where it is conducting world-leading research on that facility and particularly in marine science. But it is also very much engaged in ensuring that it is providing support to our future scientists. It is supporting the growth of STEM skills in the North Queensland region and particularly in Western Australia. We know that is an area we need to focus on, particularly into the future. Seventy-five per cent of the jobs of the future will require skills in STEM. The Australian Institute of Marine Science is doing a particularly good job in making sure that it is working with the community—as we have seen at the open day—making sure that the future scientists have the opportunity to visit the facility and to engage with the outstanding research scientists there just outside Townsville.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Immigration and Border Protection Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $4,609,577,000

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My first words are words of thanks to the department for the way in which they have been able to compile the figures that we see in this year's budget. Obviously, there are a lot of difficulties in trying to manage particularly the case load within this budget and trying to put all of that work together is no easy feat. I pay tribute to the CFO and his team, to the secretary, and to the senior leadership within the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. I want to also pay tribute to people within my own office who have worked diligently through this budget process.

The government was elected, only less than two years ago, on a very clear mandate: to make sure that we address the concerns that the Australian public rightly expressed in relation to the loss of control of our borders. And for Australia, an island nation, the fact that we had lost control of those borders was of great concern to all Australians. For a long period of time, Australians from all walks of life, have expected their federal government to be in a strong position in relation to border management and to conduct a program in an orderly fashion. As we have said before, publicly, the fact that 50,000 people came on over 800 boats signalled very clearly to the Australian public that the Labor Party had lost control of our borders.

The challenge now for the government, of course, is to not only clean up that mess and to address it in an effective way but also provide a humanitarian dividend. I am very proud of the fact that in this budget we have been able to further detail the increases in the refugee and humanitarian programs, to provide extra support at the same time as we are closing down detention centres to people across the network so that we can provide a humane environment. We have, quite literally, been able to provide a financial dividend in this budget as well.

I am pleased we have been able to give money back so that the government can address other priorities, for which we were elected, including support in this budget for small business, child care, pensioners and others. It is incredibly important that we have been able to do that because the feat that we faced when we came into government was an $11 billion blow-out in relation to these border protection matters—and that was, of course, unacceptable.

We have a number of measures in this bill. Not only have we been able to provide that $500 million dividend but we have also been able to put extra support into biometrics. One of the most important priorities for this government over the coming years will be to ensure and enhance integrity within our visa programs. It is very important for us to be able to deal with trusted traders. It is very important for us to be able to deal with people who would pose a threat, both at our borders here if they arrive at our country and also further afield where we have been able to deploy people at certain airports.

These are very important measures contained within this budget. As I have said publicly before, we have been able to close down some 13 of the 17 detention centres. That has resulted in a direct dividend allowing us to fund, for example, Counter-Terrorism Unit officers at our airports. We now have 80 staff across those airports. Why is that important? As all Australians now understand, the threat from terrorism to our country is as high as it has ever been in our country's history. The fact that we have 400 high-priority cases under investigation by ASIO right now, the fact that we have 110 or more fighters from Australia in the Middle East and the fact that we have 150 people or so who on our shore are preparing or supporting those who would seek to do us harm underscores the fact that we really do need to provide additional support through this budget.

We have been able to do that because of the success we have had with Operation Sovereign Borders. I want to commend all of the staff particularly in Operation Sovereign Borders but across the department for the sterling work that they have been able to do over the course of the last 18 months or so. This budget provides us with the foundation to support the change management that is taking place within the department and the additional training that is required to support our staff as we move to not only enhance the integrity of our visa system but make sure we have the appropriate measures at our borders.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first question I would like to ask of the minister is in relation to that initial comment that he made around keeping our borders secure. It relates to the matter which has been in the public eye since last week. This time last week an extraordinary allegation was put forward by people in Indonesia that they as people smugglers had been paid by Australian officials to take the asylum seekers on board their vessels back to Indonesia. This seemed at the time an extraordinary allegation. To be honest, when it was made, I did not take it seriously. There are a lot of allegations made in this area, as I am sure the minister knows, that turn out not to be true. The minister very quickly denied the government having paid any money to people smugglers to take their passengers back to Indonesia. Again, to be honest, that made perfect sense to me. That was last Tuesday.

Last Friday, we had the Prime Minister give a pretty astounding interview with Neil Mitchell on 3AW where he seemed to allow the possibility that this may have actually occurred and, in a subsequent press conference later that day, really invited all Australians to believe that this was precisely what occurred. My question to the minister is obviously whether or not this did occur and whether he stands by the comments that he made originally that this never happened. These were comments which made sense because the idea that you would be paying people who belong to a criminal network to undertake behaviour which would, in essence, create something of a pull factor makes no sense at all. It makes no sense that you would send a message to people smugglers that it is possible to come up next to an Australian vessel and there would be a fair chance that you would get a wad of cash paid for by Australian taxpayers. This would seem to me to be creating a new business opportunity for people smugglers in the context of a set of circumstances in which I think, in all sincerity, both sides of politics have been working over the last few years to try to remove the business opportunities of people smugglers.

This is a very dangerous development, if this is in fact what has occurred. It is very much in the public interest that we get an answer to this question. I note that, in response to questions of this kind over the last 48 hours, the government has been invoking the fact that that these are operational matters and security questions and there is a long-held precedent that governments—indeed, both sides of politics—should not respond to questions on intelligence matters. Ultimately that is not good enough, because that was not invoked at the time that the minister very clearly gave an answer last week that this did not occur. It was not invoked back then. It seems to me that it is being invoked now with a view to try and make sure that this question does not need to be answered.

I also note that the government has been busily out there, talking to various media outlets and backgrounding them on the operations, in fact, of security agencies—I have to say that in my mind it is utterly appalling that that has been put into the public domain—which has then raised questions about whether or not there were any actions of this kind that occurred when Labor was in office. Of course, we would not answer questions in relation to the activities of our security agencies, and they are not the questions that I am asking of the government or the minister this evening. But I would absolutely make this point in another context: there would be security agencies and police organisations around the world who pay informants to infiltrate criminal networks. That is a very different question to one of paying a criminal network to do a particular job. That is the question that is at hand here, in terms of the conduct that occurred last week. If the allegations are true—and the Prime Minister is not ruling them out, which of itself seems to us to be a strange message to send people smugglers—then this government has been paying criminal networks to undertake a job. We need to hear from the minister now that that did not occur.

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

This week is Refugee Week, and in Cowan I have a very diverse community consisting of people who have come from many places around the world. I think it is a testament to the success of Australia as an immigrant nation that so many have come and that so many have made wonderful contributions to the nation and communities such as in the Cowan electorate.

In my area, we have many examples of people that have come as refugees from other places, people that have fled in desperation from harsh conditions and personal risk. I know a former refugee that fled by camel from Iran and registered with UNHCR across the border in Pakistan, I know people of Vietnamese origin that came to Australia after being in the refugee camps at Hong Kong in the years following the Vietnam War, I know people that came from refugee camps in Africa and I know people who have lived for years in the refugee camps in on the Burma-Thailand border—camps that I have seen with my own eyes. When I saw the conditions in such camps and I saw how desperate the conditions were, it was easy to be moved by that experience. That is where my sympathy lies: thousands of people with a mere handful of dollars, a meal a day, subsistence conditions at best, yet more typically borderline starvation. I saw it in the eyes of those refugees. They had lost hope that their nearby homeland could be safe from brutality, landmines or persecution. Instead they wanted a future where their children had a chance for an education and a future of safety. With that loss of hope, they replaced it with the dream of the future in the land of opportunity, Australia. It is the land of opportunity, because this is a country where your success is determined by the content of your character and your determination to harvest the proceeds of your hard work. This is a place where you can come from having had nothing at Mae La shelter near Mae Sot in Thailand. If you are prepared to work and get a job, the road to that opportunity is being paved by our policy of border control.

I am therefore delighted that our humanitarian intake is now determined by need rather than cash. I say this because, after Labor changed the working immigration policy in 2008, the intake became entirely about cash and not need. I make the point that those who came by boat had cash to pay the people smugglers. Those from the Middle East had also already flown on an aeroplane to get to the people smugglers. Again, cash and means differentiated them from those in refugee camps.

I hear the fans of unfettered boat arrivals saying that there is no queue where these people come from, and that is absolute rubbish. UNHCR and the IOM have officers and representatives in many places that those who come by boat have bypassed. While Labor was letting people arrive by boat with their weak policies, those who were stuck in refugee camps waited longer and longer. While those who were heading to Indonesia were checking out duty-free options at Doha or Dubai airports whilst waiting for their Jakarta connecting flights to depart, refugees in camps were wondering whether they could eat today or get their children some clothes. As the camp kids were kicking a worn soccer ball through the dust of the refugee camp, Labor's preferred intake was handing over wads of cash or transferring thousands of dollars to bank accounts as they prepared to hop on a boat to Australia or, better still, a planned interception by the Australian Navy so they did not even need to come the whole way.

But what a contrast it is now. Since this coalition government was elected, the refugee intake goes to those in most need: persecuted and at-risk women and children; Christian refugees from the war in Syria; and those from the Burma-Thailand border, the Karens and Chins—people who know how to work hard and who are determined to succeed, just like the refugees we took from Europe after World War II or after the Vietnam War. The many refugees we took are almost entirely from refugee camps in Asia.

I know that those in the Labor Party want to return to a means-over-need system, just like the Greens. I have seen enough in this world to know that the fair way is not to accept those who step ahead with cash but always to remember those who are stuck behind the barbed wire of refugee camps and those who have a great record of fitting in and working hard when they get to Australia in the right way.

So, Minister, this is the big issue for me with regard to border security. While the Labor Party and the Greens want to whinge about the outcomes on Nauru or Manus Island, created entirely by their polices and the way in which they threw away those facilities in 2008 and then rushed to re-establish them in 2012, we are now dealing with those policy disasters. Above all I see that at last with us, those refugees with the greatest need are the priority and that Labor's disgraceful cash-over-need priorities are at an end. Therefore, Minister, I ask you how the government is restoring integrity to the humanitarian program in the budget and what will happen if Labor returns to government?

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to address some of the remarks made by the honourable member opposite and then address the remarks of my learned colleague from Cowan because I think the two issues obviously dovetail together.

To go to Mr Marles's question first: I think, frankly, what you have seen tonight can only be described as an embarrassing performance. We had question time today, where not one question was asked by Mr Marles in question time—not one. There was not one question in relation to this issue. Yesterday, this was the biggest issue that the Labor Party had, and today there was not one question. We come to this place to talk about the budget, to talk about the money that we are putting into this particular program—

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. In this place, as in the House, it is the responsibility of the speaker to refer to the member by their seat and not by their name. I would have thought that the minister would be well aware of that after the length of time he has been in this parliament.

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

Thank you. I ask the minister to refer to members by their proper titles.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In 14 years, the honourable member has yet again made another memorable contribution. There have been many over that period of time that I can recall, particularly in relation to health, and she has again excelled herself tonight—perhaps even peaked. Well done.

The point that I would make in relation to Labor's claims here is that this government—as I have pointed out publicly and as I pointed out in my earlier response—had a mess to clean up. Operation Sovereign Borders has been a success for a number of reasons, because we have been able to maintain operational integrity. We have been able to work with people of the quality of Lieutenant General Angus Campbell and, now, Major General Bottrell, with a very professional team beneath them. The work that Admiral Mike Noonan and others do within the command is world-class.

These are people who dedicate themselves to border protection and to the security of our nation, and they should be honoured. They lead a team of people within Operation Sovereign Borders, and any suggestion that they act outside of the law is an affront to them as much as it is to me. I believe very strongly that Labor, in their whispering campaign—in the most appalling press conference today that I have ever seen the Leader of the Opposition take part in—and in the fact that they did not ask a single question about this in question time today, show that they still do not grasp what is required under Operation Sovereign Borders.

The reason all of that is important is that, as the member for Cowan rightly points out, because we have been able to resurrect some integrity within the program, because we have been able to address the fact that the people smugglers were financed to the tune of over half a billion dollars by Labor when they were in government, the fact that we have broken the business model of these people smugglers, the fact that each day we continue through Operation Sovereign Borders to stare this threat down—the fact that we can do all of that is exactly the reason that we can deliver support through other programs, including to people within the electorate of Cowan.

I know a lot about the member for Cowan. He has served his country with great distinction. He has served his country not only in uniform but in this place as well. He reflects the aspirations within his own community. He provides an amazing amount of sympathy and connection with those people who have been able to change their lives forever, as he quite aptly put before, in terms of the life journey that they have embarked upon out of camps and into parts of Western Australia to create a new life. That is something our country should be incredibly proud of, but we do not have that human dividend if we allow Labor's dysfunction to return. We will do whatever it takes within the law and our obligations to international treaties to make sure that the people smugglers stay out of business. I can advise this parliament and the Australian people that all of the advice that I have is that these people are trying their best to restart their business and they are rubbing their hands together at the prospect of a Shorten-led government. We will not allow that to happen.

We will not allow the people smugglers to recommence their terrible trade, because under Labor 1,200 people drowned at sea. We have been able under this humanitarian program to increase the places by 2018-19 out to 18,750, and it means that we can get the human dividend that the member for Cowan so appropriately spoke to before.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps I will take up the last few comments that the minister made in his answer in terms of that accusation of 1,200 people dying on Labor's watch. I would also make the point that more than 650 people perished after the coalition teamed up with the Greens to see that the Malaysian arrangement which had been negotiated never came to pass. That was an arrangement which would have seen hundreds of people returned—in effect, hundreds of people turned around. You have here a government which claims that the only step that was ever taken which made a difference to the flow of asylum seeker vessels was their policy of turnbacks. If turning people around is what has made the difference then by the government's own logic, had they supported Malaysia more than two years ago, this all would have been brought to an end much earlier. But what we see from this government in this area of policy is always a rush to politics ahead of policy.

I also say that the minister made the observation that a question was not asked of him during question time today in respect of whether or not he still stood by his comments of last week, when he denied that any money was paid to people smugglers. I am not sure it would have made any difference if a question had been asked of him during question time; when I have asked the question of him tonight, he has resolutely failed to answer it. In fact, he went absolutely nowhere near it. So asking questions of this minister rarely yields a straight answer.

As the minister has sought to invoke generals Campbell and Bottrell, I also place on record that they are both fine servicemen who have made an enormous contribution to this country in every role that they have performed. We have nothing but the highest admiration for the work that they have done, and nothing that we have ever said would seek to impugn the work that General Campbell and General Bottrell have done. I think it is particularly appropriate that that gets raised in this context.

On another matter, I do want to raise the question of the proposed citizenship legislation and ask the minister when he intends to introduce a bill and when he intends to talk to the opposition about it. This is a proposition which was first put into the public domain by the government more than a year ago when then Minister Morrison raised the prospect of stripping dual citizens who had been engaged in terrorist activities.

From the point of view of the Labor Party, we do think that there is a principle which is contained in the act right now which sees that, if somebody does take up arms against Australia, their citizenship is cancelled. That is in the construct of a traditional state-on-state fight. We think it is appropriate that that be updated to take into account a phenomenon such as ISIS, along with making sure that people are not rendered stateless. We have made that clear. But the only document we have seen from the government is a leaked question time brief in which there are eight key points—three of which are about the Labor Party. The phrase 'national security' does not appear among them at all. It seems to us that the focus from the government's point of view is, again, much more around politics than what is a critically important piece of policy.

We see a government that is utterly divided both in its cabinet and its party room. We saw the minister, I imagine, take legislation to the cabinet and get rolled. We then saw his predecessor come out and try to clean up with a compromise proposal. We have seen 40 backbenchers petition the Prime Minister and, in a sense, stand over the cabinet to act in a particular way. Then we have seen Senator Cory Bernardi from the other place try and inject himself into this whole debate almost as the voice of reason—which just shows that we are absolutely looking through the looking glass when it comes to this whole episode.

Where that leaves us, though, is with government members scrapping, like kids in the schoolyard, around a profound piece of legislation. It is hard to think of a more important piece of legislation for any country than the legislation that provides for its citizenry. There is nothing more important—it is a paramount obligation—than that a government provide for the safety of its citizenry. In respect of both of these, we see a government which is treating national security with contempt and treating the Citizenship Act with contempt. The question of the minister is simply this: when are we going to see a bill and when are we going to get briefed on it?

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a very serious issue, so I am happy to take the question. My understanding from the Leader of the Opposition is there was in-principle support for what the government is proposing here. I presume from the member for Corio's contribution that the opposition is stepping back from that position. I think that would be regrettable.

There has been, in relation to a number of national security issues, some consensus between the government and the opposition. There has been no departure whatsoever in this debate from the government's perspective in relation to the process that has operated in relation to other bills, including national security bills. The normal course of action, whether it is the Liberal Party or the Labor Party in government, is that the bills would go to the caucus—or, in our case, the party room. The bills would go to the backbench committee, or whatever process Labor had preceding that, and then the bills would be introduced into parliament. At that time, there is consultation that takes place with the opposition. On advice available to me, that has been the standard process. Nobody is suggesting there should be a departure from that process. We do want to engage constructively with the opposition in relation to this matter. I am desperately concerned that, in the run-up to the Labor Party conference, sensible voices within the Labor Party will be drowned out by some of the more dramatic ones on the Left. I am sure the sensible voices sit opposite us. The difficulty in that environment is that it may drive the opposition to a position which is less than desirable.

This is a very serious bill that we bring forward with appropriate safeguards. We have said publicly, and I confirm it here again tonight, that the government's intention is to introduce the bill in this sitting fortnight. Nothing has changed in relation to that. Once the bill has been put into the parliament, my presumption is that it will be referred to the intelligence committee. There are Labor and Liberal members on that committee. I think that is an appropriate area for it to be referred to. We will provide briefings as appropriate to the honourable member opposite, as well as, I presume, to the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Attorney-General.

We are happy for that process to take place. But any suggestion that there has been a departure from that longstanding convention is quite wrong. We will provide the appropriate briefings at the right classification and at the appropriate time. That is what we will do because there is an absolute determination by the government to make sure that, where somebody is a dual citizen and they are a terrorist, we do not render that person stateless. All of those principles, for which the Labor Party have publicly stated their support, will underpin our approach. We will conduct ourselves accordingly with the opposition and that will be, I hope, a productive discussion. But there is no departure from the process that would normally be the case in relation to national security bills, I am advised.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear what the minister has said in answer to the question, and obviously we welcome it if there is some certainty that this bill will be introduced in this sitting fortnight. I would remind the minister that two weeks ago the Prime Minister said that the bill would be introduced within the next couple of weeks, which at that point meant that it should have been introduced on Monday. Instead, what we are seeing is the bill being dragged out and out. One imagines that the reason for that is that what has characterised the debate in relation to this is not so much trying to find consensus between the government and the opposition but trying to find some form of consensus amongst the government itself, which it appears has been very difficult to do. One imagines, given the reports we have heard that it did not even make it to cabinet on Monday night, that we are still battling to see whether or not that consensus can be found within the government.

The minister referred to 'normal practice'. He assured this place that there would be no departure from normal practice in relation to national security matters. I would have thought that, in respect of normal practice when it comes to national security matters, what ought to characterise that is bipartisanship—constructively working together in the national interest for our national security, which, despite the bleating of the government, is something which is held just as dearly, taken to heart, on this side of politics as it is on the conservative side of politics. We will stand up our record over the decades since Federation on that question against those on the conservative side any day of the week.

Honourable Member:

An honourable member interjecting—

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely not. What the minister needs to explain now, in the context of there being no departure from historical practice here, is the meaning of that question time brief. There are eight key points and three of them are about politically positioning Labor. The words 'national security' do not appear in it at all. This is all about a political document, and from what we have seen, from former minister Morrison flying a kite on this issue last year to the various backbench members who have been flying kites ever since—including the member for Bass, I think, and the member for Wannon—and the various comments that we have heard from both the Prime Minister and the minister aimed very much at positioning the Labor party, it is all about politics.

I just want to ask the minister: how does that fit within the historical precedent, the historical practice, of bipartisanship, with both sides of politics working together on an issue of national security? There are some key questions here. We want to know: how does this legislation work or how is it proposed to work in terms of reconciling it with the foreign fighters legislation which was passed last year? The thing is, part of the foreign fighters legislation was granting the ability or empowering our country to prosecute people for having committed terrorist acts by virtue of their citizenship. If you remove citizenship from people, it raises the question: will that still enable us to pursue people in the way that the foreign fighters legislation was enabling us to do? It is a reasonable question. Maybe the government has a really good answer for it; we would just like to have that conversation. We want to make sure that there are no unintended consequences of this legislation, and I am sure that we can have a very reasonable conversation with the government about that.

But in circumstances where there seems to be advice from the Solicitor-General suggesting that this legislation may be unconstitutional, where we have the author of the report which was the basis for these reforms, Bret Walker SC, the former Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, saying that he thinks the advice he gave in that report has been misunderstood by the government—all of these raise really significant questions. There is a perhaps even more fundamental question than that. It goes to ensuring—and I am sure the government shares this concern—that this legislation does not lead to the perception out there that there are two classes of Australian citizens. Obviously an enormous number of our population have dual citizenship. They need to be considered in this as well. That is the conversation we want to have, and we want to know when we will be able to have it.

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

I am surprised to hear those comments, Minister, given what I saw when I was elected to this place in 2007. We see a very different position taken by the opposition at this time, given their celebration around the dismantling of what was a very successful border protection policy at that time. We even heard a particular Labor member at the time describe a detention facility as, I remember, a white elephant. Unfortunately this was prior to their changing very successful border protection policies, which led not only to 50,000 arrivals but also to 2,000 children in detention—where there had, I think, been none and only a handful of people. We have seen hundreds of boats and at least 1,200 deaths at sea.

I take very seriously—as you did, Minister—what you referred to as a whispering campaign and a reflection on the defence forces. I take that seriously, particularly given the huge workload that they had to absorb during those dreadful last six years of Labor. I saw it firsthand, because I made it my business to go and see what they actually had to deal with. As a daughter of a war widow, I take the responsibility of what we as a parliament ask them to do extremely seriously. I saw the workload that was visited upon them because Labor basically reinvigorated the people smugglers' business model. Not only did we see millions of dollars go into the pockets of those people but also we saw very tragic deaths at sea of people taking extraordinary risks on leaky boats, encouraged by those very policies. Minister, Operation Sovereign Borders has stopped the boats, ended the deaths at sea and regained control of Australia's borders. How does this budget build on this very successful policy and the efforts of this government?

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member very much for her contribution and I pay tribute to the way in which she has conducted herself in relation to this debate and, in particular, her deep and sincerely held views, thoughts and care for members of our defence services. In Nola Marino you have a local member who really concerns herself very deeply about these issues—particularly where there was a significant impact on the naval staff, on other members of the defence force and on members of Customs and Border Protection during the period when Labor was in government. It must have been truly horrific for those staff to be literally pulling from the water bodies who had been half-eaten by sharks and had drowned in dreadful circumstances. As the honourable member rightly points out, 1,200 people in total, that we know of, lost their lives at sea when Labor was in power. It is beyond me, and I think beyond all of my colleagues here tonight, why Labor would want to revert to the failure that resulted in deaths at sea, an $11 billion blow-out and those 800 boats coming. Ultimately that was driven by the fact that half a billion dollars under Labor was put into the pockets of people smugglers. It was a truly shameful period of Labor maladministration. We have been able to turn back boats where it has been safe to do so and introduce temporary protection visas. Those two measures in relation to Operation Sovereign Borders—and other measures, but in my judgement primarily those two measures—has resulted in the success we have seen with Operation Sovereign Borders.

As the honourable member would know, there is an internal blue going on within the Labor Party at the moment. There is one almighty fight going on between the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in relation to turn-backs where it is safe to do so. The National Conference of the Labor Party is coming up. If we need to understand why Labor cannot adopt the successful Operation Sovereign Borders strategy, we need to understand what is happening internally. Again, I do think there are sensible voices within the Labor Party who are begging and pleading those on the Far Left of their party to come to a sensible centre, to adopt the success of the Liberal government. I honestly believe that. I have no evidence of it but I suspect it. I offer support to those people who might be appealing to the better side of their colleagues on the Left, but I suspect, sadly, that the Left is going to prevail. And, if the Left prevails, as they did during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, we will see deaths starting again at sea if Labor is re-elected at the next election. We will see those 50,000 people coming on boats again. We cannot allow that to restart. As the honourable member pointed out in her question, we cannot allow it to restart for a number of reasons, primarily because of the impact that it has on our personnel. We do not want to put our personnel into that situation and, under this government, we will not do that. That is our commitment to our defence personnel. It is why we have repeated, on a number of occasions: if you cannot control your borders, you cannot control national security. Labor did lose control of the borders. We got control of the borders back and we are doing all we possibly can at this time of heightened threat of terrorism to keep the Australian public safe.

All of the briefings that we receive in the National Security Committee of Cabinet and all of the advice that we receive from the intelligence chiefs say to us that we are living in a very different time and we need to stare this threat down. This government, as the Prime Minister has demonstrated from day 1, commits us to making sure that we do not return to a loss of control at our borders or a loss of control in relation to national security matters, particularly given that Labor ripped out hundreds of millions of dollars from those programs. We in government have been able to restore a lot of funding to our agencies to make sure that they can stand up to this current threat. That is what we do within this budget. We provide additional funding, as I said before, around biometrics in relation to a number of other programs but including, importantly, Operation Sovereign Borders so that we make sure that we never revisit a situation where people are drowning at sea and where our naval and our Customs and Border Protection staff are subject to that sort of horrific scenario.

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

Minister, it is well known that under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Labor-Green government more than 800 boats arrived carrying more than 50,000 people. It is also widely known that the complete loss of control of our borders cost the Commonwealth around $12 billion. I believe it is also fairly well understood that more than 1,200 lives were lost at sea in the scramble to reach Australia and that Labor built more immigration detention beds than they did hospital beds during their time in government. The big-picture stuff and the headline numbers are known because, when under the Labor government, every time you thought that things could not get any worse, things did get worse, and they did so very quickly. Every time things lurched from tragedy to farce, it was all over the news.

What might not be as widely understood is the effect that this chaos had on various communities, including my own in Solomon. By the time the negligent Labor days were drawing to a close, there were five immigration detention facilities either in Solomon or just outside. Chartered jets streamed in and out of Darwin airport on a daily basis, each flight costing the taxpayer tens of thousands of dollars as detainees were shuffled from centre to centre in a desperate juggling act. New centres were commissioned and built in the area around Darwin. They filled up instantly and more centres were built at enormous cost to the Commonwealth. The immigration industry in Solomon was a monster which crushed other businesses. The tourism sector was swept aside as the government booked up all the available accommodation. An entire motel in Darwin's central business district was leased by the Department of Immigration as a place of detention. Several others were leased in whole or part to immigration contractors and to departmental staff. This drove the cost of rooms up for tourists and meant fewer people were visiting my electorate for holidays.

For businesses in the restaurant industry, there were fewer diners at their tables. Tour operators also found fewer people taking up their tours. As I said, accommodation cost was a big driver keeping people away. The fishing charter operators had fewer people on their decks, and some longstanding and well-established businesses went to the wall.

Minister, it has not gone without notice in my electorate that 800 boats arrived under Labor's tenure and, to this day, 648 days into the coalition government's tenure, only one boat has arrived—one compared to 800. Things are improving in Solomon. The hotel industry is once again serving tourists. Some of the detention facilities around Darwin have been closed, and it has been reported that $16 million in lease costs alone were saved when Blaydin Point was closed.

So my question to you, Minister, is: how has Operation Sovereign Borders helped the government achieve savings of $558 million in the budget, through management of the immigration detention network?

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank most sincerely the member for Solomon. She comes from a garrison city, and she knows personnel from Defence and the Customs and Border Protection Service very well. It is hard to think of a person who has been more passionate in this place about the Defence Force and about the way governments provide support to Defence and Australian Customs and Border Protection Service staff than the member for Solomon—I pay tribute to her—and it is no surprise that she would ask this question tonight about this very important issue.

We have been able to return that $558 million dividend to the budget. Labor's $11 billion blow-out in government was completely unsustainable, as the member for Solomon points out. This government is determined to continue the good work that we have started. We continue to stare down this threat every day. We know that the people smugglers are there; they are trying to put ventures together right now. We have been able to turn back boats where it has been safe to do so, and that is the absolute secret to our success. It seems that the Labor Party will never be able to bring themselves to do that.

People should not forget that before the last election—as the member for Solomon well remembers—and indeed before the 2007 election, Labor promised up hill and down dale that they would stop the boats, that they would be John Howard light, that they would not change anything in relation to border protection management. They promised that before the election. Let me make this prediction: they will make the same promise before the upcoming election. They will say that they have put in place a new package. The member for Corio will say that he has been around the world talking to the UNHCR and having cups of tea elsewhere, looking at global and regional solutions. There will be some big picture he will paint about how the Labor Party will preside over success in this area. Do not listen to what Labor says; look at what Labor does.

There were no children in detention when Kevin Rudd came to government in 2007. At its peak Labor had almost 2,000 children in detention in our country. Today that number is closer to 100, and we work each day to try and reduce it even further. That is what we do and that is what we continue to do. I pay tribute to the member for Solomon for being such an integral part of supporting our personnel, which ultimately results in success under Operation Sovereign Borders—and indeed in the measures that we put forward in this budget.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again, what we have heard from the minister is a focus on politics and not a focus on the policy. We hear numbers being recounted by the government members and by the minister himself; a complete focus on that. We hear the claim that all the sins of the past belong to one side of politics and the claim that all the credit for the present belongs to his side of politics.

Let me make this completely clear: it was the coalition, in combination with the Greens, that voted against the implementation of the Malaysian arrangement, which prevented it passing through this parliament. It was an arrangement that would have provided for the return of 800 people. We do not know how many people have been returned via the turnback policy of this government, because it is conducted under a shroud of secrecy. I think it is safe to say that, when we were talking about the return of 800 people—by the logic of the minister that you just heard as to the key step in putting an end to the five asylum seeker vessels—had the coalition worked with Labor back then to see the Malaysian arrangement implemented, then we could have brought this to an end years ago.

I will tell you why that did not happen. It did not happen because the last thing that the coalition wanted to happen was to see this issue resolved under Labor's watch. In that respect, there is a very different circumstance now. What the government enjoys is an opposition which absolutely wants to see an end to the five asylum seeker vessels from Java to Christmas Island—we absolutely want to see that. We have been doing everything we can to work with the government in that regard. That is something that this government enjoys, which the former Labor government did not enjoy. The coalition teamed up with the Greens to vote down the Malaysian arrangement. Since that time, we have seen more than 650 people lose their lives at sea and thousands of people come to Australia. If you want to have a proper and serious conversation about the sins of the past, that is a question that needs to be examined very closely. What was the rationale stated then? Malaysia, the coalition insisted, was not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention. Of course, now the policy of turning boats around is about turning people back to Indonesia, which also is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention.

Who could believe for a second the rhetoric that was used by the coalition back then when everyone sees the way the coalition conducts itself in office now? You simply cannot reconcile the two, and that is why you will never hear the coalition talk about what they did in relation to the Malaysian arrangement years ago. You will never hear that pass their lips because it is inexplicable, given the way the government acts now.

The other point to make is this, and this is a matter of public record: 90 per cent of the flow of asylum seeker vessels stopped after the regional resettlement arrangement was entered into by the then Rudd government on 19 July 2013. Without any change in the policy settings at all right through until December 2013, we saw that flow remain at about 10 per cent of what it had previously been. If we are going to talk about who gets credit for putting an end to the flow of asylum seeker vessels, any sober analysis must realise that the most significant step taken by any Australian government in bringing an end to the flow of asylum seeker vessels from Java to Christmas Island was the regional resettlement arrangement, which was entered into by the Rudd government.

The fact of the matter is that this kind of politicking is what we need going forward if we are to have an enduring resolution to this. I am not talking about one that will last a year or two, but one that is for the next decade or two. We need to be working together on this. It is why we have to see an end to the constant politicking on the part of the government. I will make this commitment now: nothing you might see in a future Labor government would remotely entertain the possibility of re-opening that journey from Java to Christmas Island. We want to see it ended, and it has ended.

Nickolas Varvaris (Barton, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is without doubt that immigration and border security are two of the most complicated and emotional topics in our national debate to date. In my electorate, constituents are concerned with how we are managing our border, how we are processing immigration cases and how strong our borders are in relation to human-trafficking, illegal arrivals and domestic or international security alerts.

When the coalition came into power we inherited a mess that saw countless lives lost at sea, endless people-smugglers selling false hope to the most vulnerable and other deplorable tactics with no regard for human life. To have done nothing would have been an assault on our constitutional values and detrimental to our policies. The inception of Operation Sovereign Borders has meant that there have been no unauthorised maritime arrivals in over 300 days. This is something the coalition is proud of and something about which my constituents have contacted my office to relay their support, as many of them were very distraught at images of men, women and children dying at sea.

The only way to ensure no further lives are lost is to ensure our borders our secure. Our Constitution states that we have regulated borders—not open and not restricted, but regulated. Unfortunately, people-smuggling is a lucrative business that enables its operators to profit enormously at the expense of its victims. It is our duty to ensure lives are saved. In order to do this, Australia has to strengthen its operational capability to protect the asset that defines our nation as a sovereign state, and that is, our borders.

Our existing framework has been vital to protect our citizens and our gateway for trade and business, but recent events, domestically and internationally, have demonstrated that even though the existing framework is viable, it cannot guarantee to continually safeguard the integrity of our border security well into the future. That is why amendments are so necessary, so we can get on with the job of protecting our citizens whilst preventing human-trafficking and people-smuggling ventures. Amendments such as those to the Migration Act 1958 allow for simplification and streamlining in the collection of personal identifiers to allow for digitisation of biometrics during the customs process to better verify the true identity of an individual.

The introduction of bills such as the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 has been one of the most integral components of the coalition's plan to restore confidence, certainty and integrity to our immigration and border protection arrangements. Barton constituents believe it is crucial that we maintain the integrity of our asylum seeker policies so that we can process as efficiently as possible those most vulnerable and in need, while resettling those who face genuine persecution. We must be able to process claims quickly whilst allocating appropriate resources to individuals with more complex claims.

Barton constituents, like many Australians, support the government's key strategies for combating people-smuggling and managing asylum seekers both onshore and offshore. Barton residents believe in the concept of robust immigration and border protection policies. They want Australia to be a safe country in which to live, to raise their children and to go to work, whilst at the same time ensuring our borders are safeguarded against those who wish to flout the rules against businesses wishing to make a profit out of the misery of others and for the government to remain steadfast to our election promise to restore integrity and security to our nation's biggest assets, our sovereignty.

As I mentioned earlier, people-smugglers operate flexible models and should any of these be thwarted they will rapidly adapt. It is logical, therefore, to have our law enforcement policies adapt efficiently when the need arises. Integrity is paramount to our immigration and border protection policies because this is in the best interests of our citizens and lawful non-citizens.

Prior to the coalition coming into power, under Labor's disastrous policies and inaction we faced a real prospect of systematic weakening of our borders due to the increased challenges we faced with regional and global crises. We have a framework that was systematically dismantled under Labor which saw an increase in illegal maritime arrivals and people-smuggling ventures. The inaction under Labor had disastrous consequences for Australia and no-one—certainly none of my constituents—wants this to be repeated.

I take this opportunity to ask the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to explain how the standing up of the Australian Border Force on 1 July helps to protect our borders.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Barton for his contribution and recognise his longstanding service to his local community as a local mayor and a very successful small business person, as well as the great contribution he makes in this place. He talked about a very important issue, and that is the standing up of the Australian Border Force from 1 July. I want to say congratulations to Roman Quaedvlieg, the commissioner-in-waiting. He is an outstanding public servant and a man who has given effectively his whole working life to the betterment of our community. He is going to be a fantastic appointment to that position. I want to say thank you very much to him and his team and to the secretary, Michael Pezzullo, as well as all of the senior management team, for the work that they have done in preparation for the standing up of the Australian Border Force. It will be a watershed moment in the history of border protection in this country and we are very happy to provide funding for it through this budget.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Debate adjourned.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 21:00