Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Kemp, Minister representing the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Can the minister confirm that the only benefit to pensioners in the budget is a one-off payment of $102.80 to a pensioner or pensioner couple? The Treasurer in his budget speech said that the strong budget position allowed the government to recognise pensioners’ important place within our community. Can the minister confirm that a payment of $1 per week each to a pensioner couple accurately reflects the government’s recognition of pensioners’ contributions to our community?

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No-one doubts the commitment of this government to lower income families.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I doubt it!

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry—no-one except card-carrying members of trade unions who are in this Senate. I correct that. You were right to draw that to my attention, Senator Carr. The fact is that over the life of this government the Howard government has given a very high priority to assisting pensioners. In relation to the issue you raised, Senator Brown, we did give a pensioner bonus, and I think that has been welcomed. You of course wonder what else we have done. I would have thought a lot of pensioners would have been delighted with the announcement we made in relation to the assets test. I would have thought that the changed treatment of that assets test would be one of the issues which a lot of pensioners would be happy with. I am rather surprised that you did not mention that.

This is a very good day to ask such a question, because tonight Mr Beazley will be putting down the Labor Party policy. The interesting thing for the community to see, since the Labor Party is quibbling over matters in relation to the Howard government’s budget, which has been overwhelmingly welcomed, will be whether in the Beazley reply tonight he picks up Senator Brown’s suggestion. I for one will be looking very closely to see whether Senator Brown’s suggestion has been picked up and properly costed, showing what the effect on the surplus will be. But of course the Labor Party would not want any measure which affected the surplus, in light of the campaign that they are running on interest rates.

It is an interesting test for the Labor Party. Senator Lundy asked me some questions in relation to child care and I had some questions from Senator Evans. The issue is what the Labor Party will put up tonight—whether, having raised concerns about this budget, Mr Beazley will in the budget reply tonight show that he has taken the views of senators seriously or whether senators are going to be ignored. The government has announced its policy. We believe it is a policy which has been welcomed.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There were a lot of calls about your performance yesterday.

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are a lot of calls about yours every day, I have to say.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Minister, ignore the interjections and address your remarks through the chair.

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

People do not even know who the Leader of the Government in the Senate is. That is a bigger problem for you than for me, Senator Evans.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s Nick Minchin, actually.

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I meant the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. We know who the government leader is. We will be looking very closely at the budget statement by Mr Beazley tonight to see whether he shows a concern similar to Senator Brown’s.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that the government’s budget provides tax relief of $119 a week for high-income earners, more than a pensioner couple receive in a year, is the minister satisfied that the benefits of the budget surplus have been targeted fairly?

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not know whether Senator Brown has been well briefed. My understanding is that the Beazley opposition have accepted our tax cuts. They have obviously done that because they think that the tax concessions we made are sensible and fair.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the Labor Party are going to oppose these tax measures, that will be very interesting to see. But I suspect you will find that the Labor Party support our tax measures.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Coonan. Will the minister inform the Senate how the Howard government is encouraging greater local production of film and television? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies?

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Fierravanti-Wells for the question and for her keen interest in this matter, which is of great interest to many Australians. As many senators are no doubt aware, there are a number of very positive measures in the budget for film and television producers, which is of course very good news for Australian viewers. The government has demonstrated its commitment to quality national broadcasting by providing the ABC with significant new funding in the 2006-09 triennium. In addition to its triennial base funding of more than $2.5 billion, the ABC will receive $88.2 million in additional funding. This funding will help produce significant new Australian content and further strengthen the ABC’s regional and local programming.

We have committed $30 million over three years for the ABC to establish an independent commissioning arm to invest in high-quality drama and documentaries from the Australian independent production sector. The government expects the fund will operate in a similar manner to the successful SBS Independent, that is, the SBSI, commissioning fund and will attract significant external investment to boost the size of the commissioning fund. The figures in the ABC’s triennial funding submission suggest this funding of $10 million a year will enable the ABC to leverage additional investment of around $15 million a year. This will allow for the production of around an extra 30 hours of high-quality Australian drama, documentary and arts programming each year.

The funding will meet twin objectives: helping to address the reduction in Australian content on ABC TV over recent years and also providing a significant boost to the local production sector. Funding for regional and local programming will also be increased by $13.2 million over the next three years, bringing total funding for the regional and local programming initiative to $68.7 million over the triennium. In total, the ABC will receive more than $2.5 billion in government funding over the next triennium—significant investment in public broadcasting by anyone’s measure. In fact, the ABC chairman has described it as the best budget result for the corporation in 20 years.

In the budget the government also announced a review of the full range of government support measures for funding films in Australia. I commend Minister Kemp for his commitment to achieving this review. The 2006-07 review will be broad ranging and will examine the effectiveness of current programs. I note the government’s measures have been welcomed by both the screen industry and the ABC. Of course, we always hear from the other side some mouthing of support for the creative industries, but it is only the coalition that can deliver a strong economy and the real commitment that Australia needs to support a healthy and a creative screen industry.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is directed to Senator Kemp, Minister representing the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. I ask: can the minister confirm that both the new family tax payment rates contained in the budget and the welfare to work changes will operate from 1 July 2006? The budget contains welcome additional assistance to families by increasing the eligibility for family allowance. The welfare to work changes mean single parents applying for parenting payments will receive a lower payment—$55 less each fortnight to care for their children. If helping families is the highest priority of the government, as the Treasurer, Mr Costello, claims, why is the government treating single parent families on income support differently to other family unit types? Why should the children in these families be forced to live on less?

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, I have to point out to you that the government has given a very high priority to families. I made the point to you yesterday that the best friend families have had in relation to federal governments is our government. If you feel that the welfare measures announced in this budget are not up to Labor Party expectations and that the Labor Party can go further, what we will do is look very closely at what Mr Beazley will announce in the budget reply tonight.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He did not even go a minute! The question was longer than your answer. Maybe you should swap sides—in fact you probably will. Mr President, the supplementary question I have is: if the budget initiatives are designed to assist families to meet additional costs, such as petrol price increases, as the Prime Minister has argued, can the minister explain why single parent families are apparently immune to these cost increases and, in fact, in the government’s view, can live on even less?

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer to that is straightforward. Pensions are indexed. The index applied to a pension takes account—

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Chris Evans interjecting—

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have asked me about single parents on pensions, and pensions are indexed.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’re taking them off the pension, you goose!

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You asked me about single parent pensions.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Kemp, could you address your remarks through the chair and ignore the interjections.

Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Robert Ray interjecting—

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very nice to have you back from New York, Robert, I must say, and thanks for coming back. The costs that are imposed on people are taken into account in the indexation of pensions, and that, of course, includes fuel prices.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Ageing, Senator Santoro, representing the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister outline to the Senate what this week’s federal budget means for health and medical research in Australia?

Santo Santoro (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Humphries for his question and acknowledge his very strong involvement in and support for many of the initiatives delivered in Tuesday’s budget, in which he has played a huge role. Tuesday’s budget delivered a huge boost to Australian health and medical—

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Faulkner interjecting—

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Faulkner, if you are going to interject, I suggest you do it from your correct position, and I remind you that interjections are disorderly.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. While you are quite right about being disorderly with interjections and called me to order, you are just a bit out of date: I have been instructed by the whip that this is my new seat—and I am loving it!

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My seating plan is out of order too.

Santo Santoro (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tuesday’s budget delivered a huge boost to Australian health and medical research with the allocation of an additional $905 million as a major investment in our future health, meaning national health and medical research funding will increase fivefold from $127 million in 1996 to $700 million a year in four years time.

The budget provides $500 million for research into new medical knowledge and technologies with the potential to prevent or treat disease and improve the lives of Australians. It will be part of a total of $692 million to boost research grants, fellowships and specific research agendas. This will be complemented by an investment of $213 million in infrastructure and capital works for medical research organisations.

This funding injection will kindle a high-performing, high-impact collaborative research program with direct links to the medical sector and to economic growth. As my colleague the Minister for Health and Ageing said in the other place yesterday, Australia has always punched above its weight in health and medical research, having produced no fewer than six Nobel prize winners in this area.

The Senate may be interested to know that this investment in medical research has been warmly welcomed in the community. Dr Chris Roberts, the Chairman of Research Australia, described the funding boost for research as a ‘turning point for Australia’ and applauded the government for its ‘vision and commitment’ to the health of all Australians. The Australian Society for Medical Research said of the Howard government’s commitment to medical research that ‘the federal government has demonstrated leadership and vision’.

The government has also committed an additional $500 million over four years to increase funding for health and medical research grants provided through the National Health and Medical Research Council. The government will create a new Australian health and medical research fellowships scheme to support between 50 and 65 senior research positions, at a cost of $170 million over nine years. We will also provide $22 million over four years towards establishing a national adult stem cell research centre at Griffith University. I welcome this as a very special addition for the state of Queensland.

The government will also provide $163 million in grants to medical research facilities for a variety of development and expansion projects. The funding will enable these research facilities to expand and to improve their capacity and their reputation for quality research into the causes, diagnosis and treatment of disease. This budget builds on the government’s strong record of support for medical research, including infrastructure, and underscores our view that such research is of vital importance. Today’s research will produce tomorrow’s medicines and technologies, which can bring about greater health and wellbeing for our fellow Australians. The government looks forward to learning of the great advances that our highly regarded scientific community makes through this increased support over the years to come.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry, Procurement and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Finance and Administration, Senator Minchin. I refer to the government’s budget commitment that Defence will receive a three per cent real increase in funding each year to 2016. While this is a welcome announcement to meet the security challenges facing Australia, what is the identifiable risk to future defence budgets from the continuing mismanagement of defence projects? I refer to yet another adverse Audit Office report into a defence project, the Tiger helicopter, which is some $276 million over budget. Given the involvement of Department of Finance and Administration officials in the defence procurement processes, and the minister’s responsibility for budget accountability, what has the minister done to ensure that taxpayers’ money is not squandered and frittered away?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under Senator Hill, the then Minister for Defence, the government initiated the Kinnaird review of the way in which defence procurement operates. As a result of that very substantial review, the DMO has been substantially restructured and is, in my view and in the government’s view, operating extremely effectively under Stephen Gumley, who was appointed as the head of the DMO as a result of the Kinnaird review.

I think that the DMO has instituted some very major changes to the way procurement is conducted in this country. It is true that Finance has worked closely with Defence, both in that review process and in ensuring that Defence operates as efficiently and as effectively as possible in the very difficult task of managing procurement projects in this country. I do not want to allow any suggestion to float in this chamber that those involved in the DMO are doing anything other than working to their professional best in the service of this country in acquiring the equipment that Defence needs. They are extremely well funded by this government.

Senator Bishop is right to point to a recent audit report in relation to the Tiger acquisition. That is the proper role of the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General is independent and is an extremely good Auditor-General. I strongly supported his appointment—and he is a former Finance officer, as you well know, Senator Bishop. Mr McPhee is doing a very good job, and it is very important that Defence know that Mr McPhee will be all over them with respect to their acquisition projects. I am sure that will bring about a superior performance.

It is a regrettable fact for all finance ministers to observe that nowhere in the Western world, at least, is there perfection in the acquisition of defence materiel. Former Labor ministers, like Senator Ray, will know that no matter what efforts governments make to ensure perfection in acquisition, it is probably unachievable. However, all governments must aim to maximise the cost effectiveness, efficiency and delivery of defence acquisitions. Senator Bishop is quite right to point out that there is a lot of taxpayers’ money at stake.

Through the national security committee, to which I am co-opted when matters pertaining to money are raised—therefore I am there a lot—it is my job, but it is also the job of ministers on the national security committee to hold Defence to account in the acquisition process. We regret whenever there are any slippages in contracts or any unfortunate outcomes in relation to defence acquisition. But I am satisfied that there has been very substantial improvement in the operation of the DMO, and they are delivering the equipment which this country needs to ensure our national security and defence at a time when the defence forces of this country are under extreme pressure—as you know. They are serving in many theatres around the world, and that is putting enormous pressure on the Department of Defence. Despite those pressures, I think that the DMO are operating as well as any defence organisation in the Western world.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry, Procurement and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, isn’t it true that the failure to deliver the Tiger helicopters is matched by other recent and equally disastrous project failures? For example, the Seasprite helicopters budget has blown out to $2 billion and nearly $1 billion has been spent on the FFG project with nothing to show for it. Isn’t it correct that continuing to have massive overspends will undermine the value of the three per cent real increase in funding each year? When is the government going to accept its responsibilities in managing these projects so that the ADF gets what it needs and taxpayers’ money does not continue to be wasted?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course we accept our responsibilities. That is why we conducted the Kinnaird review of the operation of the DMO. That is why we have instituted probably the most radical and major changes to the operation of defence acquisition in the history of this country. As I said, the ANAO was critical of the Tiger reconnaissance helicopter project. It made five recommendations. I am advised that the Department of Defence has accepted all those recommendations and will implement them. I am also advised by Defence that it is confident the Tiger helicopter will have very effective capability and that it will meet Army’s operational requirements. But I accept your injunction on the importance of the government holding Defence to account to ensure that it does use taxpayer resources cost-effectively to deliver defence projects.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’re not responsible, as usual. Blame Defence on this occasion.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just blame anybody.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Faulkner, you are only there temporarily; I understand you are moving back down here next—

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hope not!

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hope so!

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Far too close to you!