Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today.

In particular, I refer to the question asked by Senator George Campbell to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs representing the Minister for Education, Science and Training. I think it was a very lacklustre response to a very important issue in the budget about pensions and particularly about skills training in today’s question time. This has been a golden period for Australia. Our terms of trade are the best they have been for many decades and commodity prices are underpinning a booming economy. The commodities driving this are principally resources commodities, which are in great demand from the rising economies in China and India. Our agricultural commodities, however, are a bit patchier and are a useful reminder of the cyclical nature of commodities booms.

Australia has taken advantage of the good times, and this has been possible because of some far-sighted changes in the structure of the economy set up by the Hawke and Keating governments in the 1980s and 1990s. The Howard government that has followed has proved to be a good manager of the accounts but a disappointing leader of economic change. This period is opportune for us to set in place the economic conditions that will see us through the next cycle of downturn and upswing. This is where the 2006 budget has been a signal failure and part of a string of failures by the Howard government.

There is no doubt about it—this is the time to invest in people and in infrastructure. I think it is the biggest signal failure of this government that it is neglecting people in the areas of education, training and industrial relations. No doubt, the leader of the Labor Party, Mr Kim Beazley, will expand on this in his budget reply tonight. But I would like to talk about one example I encountered recently which illustrates, in the form of an anecdote, the way the government is failing to pay adequate attention to traineeships. The minister can reel off figures all she likes, but this is what is happening on the ground. I received a letter from a man who was concerned about a young man in the Gawler area who wanted to do an autoelectrical apprenticeship. He graduated from year 12 last year, contacted the Motor Trades Association about the autoelectrical apprenticeship and is very keen to start. He was told—and this was confirmed to me by the Motor Trades Association apprenticeship group—that 800 to 900 applications are received every year from people wishing to be apprentices, and only 230 positions are found for those people.

Here we have a country that is crying out for apprentices. Even assuming that some of those inquiries are not genuine, we have large numbers of young people wishing to take on apprenticeships, and yet there are not sufficient positions for them to take up. This is an appalling situation. The Motor Trades Association’s response to this was that this young man should just keep trying. He was told that there were about six to eight autoelectrical apprenticeships given every year, and that he should just sit there and wait until he was contacted. I did not think this was good enough and contacted a number of people who are in the business of assisting apprenticeships, including a union based organisation in the south of Adelaide that I visited with Kim Beazley, and they were most helpful. I then contacted the Service to Youth Council, and they also provided advice and encouragement about where he should go now.

This is the kind of thing that is happening as a result of the government’s neglect of training and skills based apprenticeships. People who want to take on these roles and want to be part of our booming economy are being blocked from doing so because insufficient attention has been paid to the pathways from schools through to appropriate skills training or other tertiary training, because the government has also neglected that area. But this is an appalling waste. (Time expired)

Judith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers given by Senator Kemp. I would like to speak about the Welfare to Work reforms and the effect of Welfare to Work on families and children. The Welfare to Work reforms are aimed at helping parents to enter the workforce and providing support services to encourage increased economic and social participation. The best form of welfare for families is a job, and the positive role models of working parents will always be good for children.

Changes to income support arrangements, participation requirements and employment services will support parents of school aged children to become less dependent on welfare and to participate in the workforce. There will be more practical support to parents to help them prepare for employment and to assist with child care, including 84,300 extra outside school hours care places, 2,500 extra family day care places and 1,000 extra in-home care places. Parents will not be required to accept a job offer if they have a good reason for declining, such as suitable child care not being available or if the cost of care would result in a very low or negative financial gain from working.

From 1 July 2006, all parents on income support whose youngest child is aged six or over will have an obligation based on their capacity to seek part-time work of at least 15 hours per week. Parents receiving parenting payment prior to July 2006 will be able to remain on parenting payment until their current entitlement expires—that is, until their youngest child turns 16. Existing recipients of parenting payment will have a 12-month grace period before new obligations commence, with their obligation commencing from the latter of 1 July 2007 or their youngest child’s seventh birthday. If these parents go off parenting payment for more than 12 weeks and need to reapply for income support after 1 July 2006, they will be treated as new applicants.

Parents applying for an income support payment on or after 1 July 2006 will receive parenting payment until their youngest child is six years old for partnered parents and eight years old for single parents. Single parents on Newstart or youth allowance will also be eligible for pharmaceutical allowance, pensioner concession cards and telephone allowance. Parents newly claiming income support whose youngest child is aged from six to 15 will be required to work part time, search for part-time work or undertake suitable activities to prepare them to return to work. Requirements will be tailored to the individual and family circumstances. Single parents receiving Newstart allowance who are suitably involved in providing and supervising home schooling or distance education, who have large families—four or more children between the ages of six and 15—or who are active and registered foster carers will receive Newstart allowance at an amount always equal to parenting payment single. This higher rate of payment recognises that some single parents are involved in significant ongoing tasks over and above the normal tasks associated with parenting and other caring responsibilities.

Parents, both partnered and single, who are involved in home schooling, distant education or foster caring will also receive automatic exemptions from participation requirements. Parents in these groups will still be able to access the full range of employment services on a voluntary basis, including the new service, Employment Preparation.

I would also like to speak about the claims that single mothers will not benefit from work and that changes announced in the budget are unlikely to encourage women to enter the workforce. Mothers moving from welfare to work benefit enormously from working. The budget provides even more incentives for mothers to re-enter the workforce. A mother in part-time work can get up to $365 per year extra due to the increase in the low-income tax offset. If she has three children, she will now be eligible for the large family supplement of an extra $248 per year. Mothers will also benefit by the increase in the lower income threshold level to $40,000 to receive full rate family tax benefit part A, up from $33,361. (Time expired)

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Science and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too would like to take note of the answers to questions today, particularly those answers to questions around the budget, and to reflect a little on the lack of any evidence or information about the impacts of this year’s budget on regional Australia. The question that was asked of Senator Vanstone about the Australian technical colleges was in fact a very interesting one, because, as Senator Hurley said earlier, the issue of regional skills development, regional training and regional opportunities for young people is something that is severely lacking in this budget.

Let me focus on a few of the things that were not in the budget. First of all, the Treasurer did not mention regional Australia once in his budget speech. It seems that regional Australians really are the losers from the budget speech the other night. Let us think about the increase in petrol taxes that are to be experienced by everyone in regional Australia when the Fuel Sales Grant Scheme is abolished on 1 July. Petrol prices in regional Australia will increase by an average of three per cent from 1 July. That is certainly not something that was factored into the budget the other evening. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer both say that the tax cuts will compensate for rising petrol prices, but of course that is not really going to be the case. In six weeks time, we are going to see a significant price hike for petrol in regional Australia.

We did not hear very much about regional universities in the budget. Even Senator Joyce is concerned about the meagre compensation for regional universities in this budget. Just think about the way student activities and student funding have been cut. Student services in regional universities across Australia get a meagre $10 million to try and compensate for the services that have disappeared under the VSU legislation.

They are two of the factors that are really bothering me, but the real issue for me in this budget is regional health services. When I looked very carefully at what is in the budget for regional Australia, I found that there is nothing to demonstrate a commitment to regional health. There is nothing for new doctors and nurses. The Southern Area Health Service where I live in regional New South Wales has experienced a shortage of nurses—of course, it is a global shortage—and that has required New South Wales Health to attract overseas nurses and pay them an extraordinary rate. They are all agency nurses. They have to be paid well above the award on a contract rate and the area health service has to pay additional costs to the agency. And, of course, when these nurses finish their short-term placements in the hospitals and with the area health services, the result is that we are seeing a huge turnover of staff. That really is not a very effective way of delivering health services.

We have seen that the government is planning to sell off Medibank Private. There will be fewer branches in regional towns, higher insurance premiums for people with private health insurance and no net gains for regional communities anywhere. Where is the investment anywhere in regional communities for a regional future? Where is the investment in regional infrastructure to provide a vision for the long term? Where is the investment in regional capacity? Absolutely nowhere. It is a disappointing budget all round. I think we will see that responded to this evening by the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of the answers in question time today, in particular the answers of Senator Kemp. Like the minister, I welcome the initiatives and the provisions for older Australians in this year’s budget. Prior to addressing my remarks to Senator Kemp’s answers, I would like to respond to the previous speaker. Senator Stephens indicated that regional Australia has been largely ignored. That is a furphy. It is totally incorrect. If I could quote from today’s edition of the Advocate newspaper from my home electorate of Braddon in north-west Tasmania. In that electorate, we have more than 12,000 pensioners who will benefit greatly from this budget, but from a very strong regional perspective. The editorial in the Advocate newspaper says:

Peter Costello’s rivers of gold have been flowing back into the taxpayer for some time and Tuesday night’s effort could be described as a flood. One of the good things about the budget was that most of the spending was sensibly targeted. One great result was eliminating tax on superannuation benefits for people 60 and over.

Without reading it all, the editorial concludes:

The local economy and the majority of the public will benefit from the budget.

This is from a regional newspaper in regional Australia in the electorate of Braddon.

Security for older Australians is a particular strong point of this budget. A fairer assets test has been added. It is proposed to reduce the pension assets test taper rate to $1.50 per fortnight for every $1,000 of assets above the free area. This will come in from 20 September 2007. Based upon the current age pension, a single retiree home owner could have around an additional $165,000 worth of assets before losing the age pension. I know that has been welcomed in wide areas of Australia. Also, a couple on a couple pension could have around $275,000 worth of additional assets. Further provisions provide for tax relief so that those who are eligible for the senior Australians tax offset will pay no tax on their annual income up to $24,867 for singles, and for couples that is increased to $41,360. These are tremendous provisions looking after older Australians, as we always do as a coalition government.

There will be further assistance to older Australians with the cost of utilities. In the electorate of Braddon, where my home base is, 12,000 pensioners will benefit from this utilities assistance. In 2005, we as a coalition introduced a utilities allowance for age pensioners, while a seniors concession allowance was introduced for certain self-funded retirees who do not get pensioner concessions. This year an additional one-off payment of $102.80 will be provided to each household with a person of age or service pension age eligible for that allowance. The $102 payment will also be provided to each self-funded retiree who is eligible for seniors concession allowance. The eligibility for the utilities allowance will be extended to recipients of mature age allowance, partner allowance and widow allowance. This payment will be made by 30 June 2006, so in a matter of weeks those older Australians will be receiving that one-off payment.

Supporting older Australians has certainly been a strong priority of the coalition. The strong budget provision makes allowance again for our older Australians, many of whom have supported us as we have come up through society, as we have been raised in our families and in our communities. It is only fitting and proper for a government of any nature to look after and support our mature Australians. I am proud to say that the budget this year, apart from taking care of older Australians, looks after every person within the community. There would be very few, in particular among the more mature members of our society, who could argue that this budget has not affected them positively in one way or another. People who require assistance in any way, shape or form in relation to interpreting the budget should feel free to contact any coalition senator or member in their home electorate or home state, and we will be most pleased to go over the provisions and the benefits of the budget. (Time expired)

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the answers from government senators to questions about the budget—or should I say the lack of answers, which I am growing used to and I find quite disappointing. I would like to reiterate some comments that were made by my colleagues during the debate on motions to take note of answers yesterday. Labor has already stated that it will support the changes to tax and family payments that are contained within the budget. These are certainly long overdue and something that Labor has long supported. However, the government has forgotten many people in this budget. The government says that Labor is nitpicking and desperate because we draw attention to the areas that Mr Costello and Mr Howard have continued to ignore. If it is nitpicking to want to ensure that the truth is known about what is missing in this budget and who has been left out—and there are a great deal of them—then I guess we are.

Isn’t it funny that the Treasurer, Mr Costello, and the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, have spent the last few days selling the attributes of the budget, namely tax cuts? Mr Costello and Mr Howard are very quick to point out that they are handing out $39 billion in tax cuts. But the problem is that for the majority of people this will equate to less than $10 a week. Labor’s concern about this budget is the people that the government has forgotten—the people who will not benefit from the tax cuts, the people earning less than $10,000 a year, the people on disability support pensions and single parents.

The government has made much of the fact that it will create an extra 25,000 child-care places by 2009, bringing the total number in Australia to 700,000 by that year. But what about the affordability of child care? The government has also forgotten those people who are waiting to have their teeth fixed. There are more than 650,000 people in Australia currently waiting for dental care, and still the government has not reinstated the Commonwealth Dental Health Program. In this budget, the government has forgotten thousands of Australians, and the sad thing is that it is these forgotten people who need help most—which is in stark contrast to the comments of the previous speaker.

Furthermore, it is the poor, the people who are living on the poverty line, the single mothers, who have to make a choice between staying on benefits and surviving or going back to work, putting the kids in child care and working for absolutely nothing. In fact, women have almost been forgotten in this budget altogether. There are no incentives to improve pay equity. There are no solutions to better the quality of child care. There are no family-friendly work incentives such as those outlined in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission’s family provisions test case. There is no national plan to combat violence against women.

On top of that, there is no investment in skills or training. There is no plan for health care reform. There is no investment in the health care workforce to ensure that health care professionals are where they are needed most, such as in the regional areas of Tasmania. There is no plan to reform relationships between the Commonwealth and the states. But even for those whom the government would like us to believe they are helping—those people who will be fortunate enough to receive some kind of tax cut, no matter how small—daily life is still a struggle.

The government have made it no secret that they believe they are the reason for the low interest rates in this country. I would like the government to think about one point: why are Australians now so scared of interest rates? It is because they have stretched themselves so far to afford their mortgages, which are now at record highs. It is because the average person now has more personal debt than ever before. It is because the new IR laws threaten workers’ jobs, lower workers’ wages and terrorise their livelihoods. And it is because ever-increasing petrol prices and child-care costs and a rise in the cost of living keep everyone scared. All these factors combined mean that the average Australian is almost too scared to watch the news every morning for fear of the further hits they will receive at the hands of this government. The government remind us again and again of what a great deed they are doing by offering Australians tax cuts, but what use are these tax cuts to average Australians when it is a daily fight just to keep their heads above water?

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to take note of the answer to the question I asked of the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage regarding the proposal by the Queensland government to build a dam on the Mary River just south of Gympie. The aspect that I particularly want to emphasise in regard to the answer is that there is a legal obligation on the federal environment minister to ensure that no proposal, particularly a major proposal or activity, will impact negatively on the species that are recognised as endangered or on World Heritage values. There are a number of other matters, but certainly those two are particularly relevant for this proposed dam.

I make the point of emphasising the responsibility of the federal environment minister here in part because the Premier of Queensland, Mr Beattie, has made a number of statements indicating the determination of his government to go ahead with building this regardless of public opposition and concerns about it. He gives every indication to me of simply being absolutely determined to build this for political reasons, to show that his government is acting in regard to water issues. Water is certainly an important issue in south-east Queensland. I am well aware of that, as is virtually everybody that lives in that region. But the simple fact is that Queensland, economically, environmentally and socially, has been damaged in the past by dams and related big infrastructure projects being built predominantly for political purposes. It is very disappointing, disheartening and concerning to see the potential for this to happen again. Clearly a political need is very heavily influencing the attitude of the Queensland government.

The call I make to the federal environment minister and note in response to the commitment given by the person representing him today in the Senate, Senator Abetz, is to ensure that he lives up to his responsibilities under the federal environment act. It is not just a power that he has to use if he feels like it; it is actually a legal responsibility of his to determine that a particular action will not unduly affect endangered species or World Heritage values. Once this project, as it inevitably will be, is recognised as a project that triggers obligations under the federal environment act, he will need to ensure that there is a full and proper environmental impact assessment. Again, from the statements made, particularly by Premier Beattie, there is a real concern that the desire of the Queensland government is not to do that but to basically do a fast-track assessment to get on with starting construction as quickly as possible.

I focus on the environmental aspects here because that is the area where there is a clear federal responsibility to act. The federal environment minister has acted somewhat controversially in regard to a wind farm development in Victoria because of the endangered species the orange-bellied parrot. The lungfish and the cod in the Mary River do not have orange bellies as far as I know but they are certainly endangered, and this is one of their last remaining habitats. It is very important that that is not put at risk.

There are wider consequences. This will have downstream consequences that will significantly impact on recreational and commercial fishers in the region because of its impact on fish breeding grounds. It will certainly have economic impacts in the region because at least 900 rural properties covering about 7,600 hectares will be resumed. The Queensland dairy industry has indicated that around 10 per cent of the local dairy industry in the Gympie region will be removed from productivity, which will have a significant flow-on effect. There is also the impact on those that are removed from their homes and on the towns that are affected. There will be the cost of resumptions, which, there have been suggestions, may be as much as $1 billion, and the probable redirecting and rebuilding of the Bruce Highway, part of which will be inundated if the dam is put where it is suggested is most likely. Again, that would be enormously expensive. This is going to be a massive expenditure just to be seen to be doing something that, from everything that history can show us, is far from certain to fix the water problems in south-east Queensland anyway.

Question agreed to.