Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (Senator Carr) to questions without notice asked today.

It all sounded so very simple. The government was going to bring schools into the 21st century, apparently from the Stone Age. They developed this glib promise: a digital education revolution. You might remember during the election campaign Mr Rudd turned up at a school surrounded by adoring teachers and students, grabbed hold of a laptop and said, ‘This is the toolbox of the 21st century.’ He was half right. It is a toolbox, but without any tools. What we now know about the digital education revolution is that the way that Mr Rudd is going to play it is this: he will turn up at the school gates and he will dump some shiny new objects, some shiny laptops, at the school. He will stay there for the media conference, smile benignly and then jump in his Comcar and head overseas again, and the ongoing maintenance costs will be borne by both government and independent schools. These are ongoing costs that will last for years.

What are these costs? For a start, there is co-financing the broadband rollout, because we now know after estimates that the $100 million allocated for that purpose by the federal government will not be enough to provide all secondary schools in Australia with a broadband connection of up to 100 megabits per second. The ongoing costs of broadband access—who will be paying for that? Not Mr Rudd. Rewiring the schools to give them a sufficient number of outlets to power all the computers is a cost of over $100,000 for the average school—who will be paying for that? Not Mr Rudd. The ongoing costs of all the extra electricity consumption, the air-conditioning to keep the computers at the right temperature, the insurance and the security—who will be paying for all that? Not Mr Rudd. The maintenance of all the hardware; repair and replacement of broken, damaged and stolen units; the maintenance and repair of the broadband connection; the software and software updates—who will be paying for that? Not Mr Rudd. Almost 120,000 secondary school teachers will have to be retrained to be able to teach in the new digital education environment—this wonderful, glorious revolution—and who will be paying for that? Not Mr Rudd.

This reminds me of one of those mobile phone deals. Remember Crazy John? He gives you the free mobile phone and what do you do? You get a free mobile phone and then you pay forever for the ongoing costs. The digital education revolution works like this: we give you a shiny new laptop, and Crazy Kev’s education revolution is that you pay the ongoing costs forever.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Mason, you should refer to people in the other place by their correct title and not those that you might construct on the spur of the moment. Thank you.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, when I said ‘Crazy John’ I was not referring to you, sir.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you used the Prime Minister’s name in a way that was not fitting—and it would not matter who was the Prime Minister; I would ask you to correct that.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise, Mr Deputy President. In the case of state schools that means that state governments will bear the costs. Who here would charge state Labor governments with looking after our schools? I know in my home state that the state Labor government cannot even air-condition the schools for the students. How can we trust them to look after all those ongoing costs? When it comes to independent and Catholic schools, who is going to be—

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Working families.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Working families will be footing the bill—those schools and those parents will be footing the bill, not Mr Rudd. And, of course, what we now know after the embarrassment of estimates is that the deception goes much deeper. In fact, the minister confirmed this today. Initially the argument was: there will be one computer for every student. Now we know from estimates and today’s answer that at best it might be one computer for every two students. This was a deliberate deception at the time of the election—a very glib phrase, it sounded great, but an absolute deception. What we now talk about, apparently, is access. That is now the new argument, that is the new terminology, not ‘one computer each’. And we learnt yesterday that apparently broadband may not be unrolled to schools until next year. Senator Coonan uncovered that atrocity. So we now know these great laptop computers may not be fed from broadband. So what have they got? Nothing better than typewriters. This education revolution is a glib sham and it is typical of the first 100 days of the Rudd government: all symbolism and nothing below it. (Time expired)

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government is concerned that, as we lead into the Easter break and families are preparing to head off to country and seaside locations, or interstate to visit friends and relatives, they may end up paying more for their petrol. But, as I say that, I look at those opposite and think: do they really believe that this is the first time that Australian families have had to pay more for petrol at Easter time, on weekends or during the Christmas holidays? They had 11 years in government. Are they saying that that did not occur during their reign?

But there is a difference. The Rudd Labor government has put in place mechanisms to assist in addressing this issue. The first point is that we have introduced greater transparency into the petrol market in Australia in the last four months than the previous government managed to do in 11 years. Since its election the government has moved to appoint a full-time petrol commissioner. Patrick Walker has spent 10 years as Western Australia’s Consumer Protection Commissioner. He will keep a continual watch on the industry and regularly report to the government. The government has also asked the ACCC and the new commissioner to commence a renewed focus on LPG and diesel prices to advise it on whether any further powers for the ACCC in this area are necessary or desirable. Pat Walker is due to start on 31 March.

Formal monitoring powers are also being given to the ACCC on unleaded petrol prices. This gives the ACCC the power to seek documents and to subpoena witnesses about decisions at any point in the supply chain to ensure that there is no anticompetitive conduct. The government and the ACCC have also agreed that the commission will undertake a more detailed examination and ongoing monitoring of buy-sell arrangements; will complete an audit of terminals suitable for importing refined petrol into Australia, covering terminal capacity, use, leasing and sharing arrangements; will provide ongoing monitoring of the use, leasing and sharing of terminals suitable for importing refined petrol into Australia—and it goes on.

We have always fessed up to the Australian people on the key factors that drive Australia’s retail petrol prices. However, we depart from the coalition on what the government can and should be doing in promoting competition and transparency in the petrol market. Members opposite need to look at what they did in 11 years of government. Over Easter we will have ACCC inspectors and officers for fair trading in New South Wales and Queensland on the ground investigating petrol prices and taking action against any companies which are engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct.

The Rudd government take both consumer affairs and competition policy seriously. We take seriously the plight of working families and small businesses, both of which would bear the burden of high petrol prices. The Rudd government is committed to making a difference for consumers. Indeed, it wants to empower consumers by making markets fairer. As well as working for retail price transparency in the petrol market, we on this side will crack down on cartels which defraud consumers and we are instituting a significant inquiry into the grocery industry. The Rudd government is doing everything it can to put downward pressure on petrol and grocery prices, to help ease cost-of-living pressures on working families, together with its five-point plan to win the war on inflation.

I cannot move on without looking at education, another issue that was raised by senators over there, and computers in schools. The Rudd government made an election promise and the government is keeping that promise. The government policy promises access to a computer for every student in years 9 to 12. We are on the way to delivering this promise. The first $100 million of the $1 billion for the digital education revolution will be rolled out this financial year. We have already opened round 1, inviting 937— (Time expired)

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a remarkable performance we witnessed today in question time from Senator Carr. It was truly remarkable. At one stage today the minister asked those opposite whether we found his performance humorous. Well, it was humorous to a degree—humorous in the like of a tragic comedy. It was a true comedy of errors that we saw taking place opposite. As Senator Carr flailed around, shuffling his notes, shuffling his folders and struggling to find a brief, he was given only brief respite by the occasional point of order that allowed Senator Faulkner to whisper some advice in his ear.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You called the points of order.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It truly was a remarkable performance. Senator Carr should have been grateful for the points of order because they did help him out remarkably. We found it funny. Of course, I noted not everybody on the other side found it funny. There were senators with their faces buried in their hands. Senator Ray had to leave the chamber during one of Senator Carr’s remarkable performances, such was his lack of humour at the performance we saw put on.

We saw Senator Carr flail from issue to issue to issue today. When asked up-front about the news that is across all the newspapers today about the estimated windfall revenue gain that the government may get from its carbon emissions trading scheme—the government may receive up to $20 billion—Senator Carr had no idea. He clearly had not read his clips, had not been briefed or could not find the brief. Whatever it was, he had no idea that there could be $20 billion coming the government’s way and could not tell us whether they were going to pocket that or whether they were going to give it back to households, to working families and to Australians to meet the increased costs that will come with climate change. Indeed, when asked directly by Senator Milne about the Labor Party’s policies and how they might go about helping working families adjust to the costs of climate change, once again Senator Carr could not answer. That was not a question about somebody else’s comments; that was a direct question from Senator Milne, who I see has entered the chamber, about Labor’s policies that they took to the election. We saw Senator Carr with no idea. He had no idea on their policy, no direction at all.

When asked about petrol supply, which Senator Wortley just talked about, the best he could do was talk about petrol prices because that was the brief that he could find. He looked up ‘p’ for petrol, found something on petrol prices and thought, ‘This will do.’ Nothing on petrol supply was uttered—nothing, because he could not find a brief to refer to, quite clearly. He was hapless and hopeless without finding such a brief. It really was a remarkable performance.

Then when questioned about plastic bags he repeated the ‘no Commonwealth levy’ assurance given by Mr Garrett, after some flip-flopping on the issue, of course, and after overturning what had been said in Senate estimates evidence. The minister for the environment had already changed where the government was going on this. Senator Carr today was asked not about a Commonwealth levy—because we will take the government at its word that there will not be a Commonwealth levy—but about the government’s position on any levy on plastic bags. Indeed, what I suspect will occur when the environment ministers meet is we will see an agreement to have a uniform national levy implemented by the states and territories. It will be a national levy by backdoor mechanisms. They will be able to say it was not a Commonwealth levy, but it will be a national levy and it will hurt working families. It will hurt working families just because this government wants glib headlines about plastic bags rather than seriously tackling issues of waste management.

Senator Carr has another six or seven weeks now to sweat it out before he has to face question time again. And sweat it out I have no doubt he will. We will no doubt see, if these performances continue, that one day the Prime Minister will have to say to Senator Carr, as they do in the TV show The Weakest Link, ‘You are the weakest link—goodbye!’ and welcome somebody else to the front bench to replace the unable Senator Carr. (Time expired)

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, you and I were sitting next to each other in question time and you may recall that I commented to you that I thought it was ‘pensioner day’ today because Senator Kemp got up and then Senator Lightfoot. I am not sure whether to categorise Senator Ian Macdonald that way. I do not know whether he has one foot in the grave or not. That is for his own side to work out.

I want to comment on the silly strategy that the opposition conducted today. The minister in charge of petrol pricing is Chris Bowen, the Assistant Treasurer. Not one of the opposition’s questions was to the Assistant Treasurer.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It wasn’t about prices.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was about prices. Then there was a question to a minister representing a minister representing a minister. Senator Carr attempted to answer the questions they were giving him, but in fact they should have been sent to the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer. This is Eric’s first day of taking over the leadership of his party in the Senate and already their strategy is in a shambles. On his first day of taking over, the first thing Senator Abetz did was let the pensioners off the leash and let them have a go.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have already expressed my view to you privately about Senator Birmingham and Senator Brett Mason. They are B1 and B2—

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hutchins, your comments should be directed to the chair, and those interjecting on my left should cease.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, the strategy today seemed a bit pointless. If you want to know about petrol prices, you ask the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer, not Senator Sherry, not Senator Carr and not a minister representing a minister representing a minister. You should ask the Assistant Treasurer, because that is the area that involves this portfolio.

You asked what the government is doing in relation to petrol prices. Let me tell you what we have been doing. We have been doing more than you ever did in 11½ years.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You were both ministers in that government and you did bugger all.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me; withdraw that.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Withdraw that.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz, I do not need you to adjudicate as the chair. Senator Hutchins, you should withdraw that.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw that. As you are well aware, and you were advised of this in question time, Mr Graeme Samuel, the head of the ACCC, has written to the oil companies and put them on notice about unfair prices at the bowser. He has asked them to justify themselves to him if anything happens over this Easter break. A hotline has been set up by the ACCC to monitor prices so that if anybody believes that the oil companies or the petrol stations are ripping them off they will be able to go straight to that hotline and, as Senator Sherry said, cooperate with the inspectors from the departments of fair trading in New South Wales and Queensland in particular to ensure no ripping off goes on.

As I said, you lot were in power for 11½ years. Both Senator Abetz and Senator Ian Macdonald were ministers in the former government and they did nothing at all. We are now acting. In the 100 days that we have been in power, we have said that we will set up a petrol commissioner. That will be Mr Patrick Walker, as Senator Wortley has outlined. We have also advised the oil companies in writing that, as well as the fines at the moment for collusion, we will criminalise cartel conduct. There will be no few hundred thousand dollar fines which they can cover; we will criminalise it so that those oil company directors or people who cooperate in trying to push up the price of fuel may find themselves spending a few years in jail if cartel conduct is proven. We have done that; what did the opposition do while they had the opportunity to do anything about it? Nothing at all.

I do not know what they expect the government to do in relation to this. Are they really suggesting that we should nationalise the petrol companies? I know Senator Brandis and Senator Mason like to travel around the world, popping in on the odd communist dictatorship, like they did in Cuba. I know they would like to nationalise that in Cuba and I think they have in Venezuela or Colombia. Maybe that is the solution. Maybe that is what Senator Ian Macdonald will get up and advise us we should do: take a leaf out of George’s and Brett’s book and go over to Cuba and see what Fidel would do. That is what they want us to do: just nationalise.

We have acted, and we have acted swiftly. The oil companies know that they are on notice. Petrol stations know that they are on notice. If they misbehave over this weekend— (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I did not want to interrupt Senator Hutchins during his speech, but I want to rise on a point of order about Senator Hutchins’ language. He made a derogatory comment about pensioners. Senator Birmingham, Senator Kemp and I do not care if he is referring to us, but it was a derogatory slur on pensioners in Australia and I think that Senator Hutchins should be invited to apologise to pensioners for being derogatory in the way in which he referred to them.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. That is an outrageous proposition. There was no attempted slur on pensioners in this country. This is an attempt to verbal Senator Hutchins in relation to what he said. He was suggesting in a colourful way that there are certain senators here who are not going to be in this chamber for very long. I think everyone understood that. Therefore, there is no point of order.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is quite obvious that the talent pool within the Labor Party is very shallow. We on this side thought that the performance of Senator Carr was such that people like Senator Hutchins and Senator Wortley might be champing at the bit to replace him, but I must say that their performances were even more abysmal than Senator Carr’s, hard as that is to believe. We had the hapless Senator Hutchins tell us about the issue of prices for petrol. He made exactly the same error as Senator Carr. The question that was asked was: is there a petrol supply shortage in Australia? Senator Carr, not having a brief on the matter but having a brief on petrol prices, spoke all about petrol prices. Even in taking note of answers, Senator Hutchins, having no idea about petrol supply, talked about petrol prices. It was completely irrelevant to the issue that was actually raised.

Senator Wortley raised petrol prices. She said, ‘What did you do about petrol prices during your 11½ years?’ One thing we were was honest with the Australian people. Prime Minister Rudd went to the election last year promising that he could do something about petrol prices—like King Canute, saying that he could turn back the tide. At the time King Canute said it, people rushed around him and said, ‘What a great idea. We like this King Canute fellow,’ and they went and followed him. But, of course, as time went by, King Canute realised that he could not turn back the tide. I understand in that fable that King Canute at least was honest enough to say that he had become too arrogant and sought an apology. I think that is what Prime Minister Rudd ought to do, because he went to the Australian people saying: ‘I hear you on petrol prices. We will do something about it.’ But what has happened with petrol prices? In Sydney they are already at $1.50. One of the issues confronting Australia is the supply of petrol. It was a very large article in the Sydney Morning Herald. That Senator Carr should come in here not briefed on the topic was an absolute disgrace.

For Senator Hutchins to somehow say that this was an issue being asked of a minister representing a minister representing a minister of course is also wrong, because the supply of petrol falls very neatly within the jurisdiction of the Minister for Resources and Energy, who he represents in here on a regular daily basis. He should have been fully briefed on the matter, but he was not. So no matter where we go with Senator Carr, be it on a free trade agreement, be it on plastic bags, be it on schools, be it in any area whatsoever of the responsibilities that he has in this chamber, he is unable to give a coherent answer. It is either because of his overblown sense of self-importance or it is because of his incompetence. I unfortunately fear it may well be the latter. But, of course, when incompetence is there then the arrogance comes in to try to make up for the incompetence.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But I tipped him off on the question!

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are quite right, Senator Macdonald. In relation to the question that Senator Macdonald asked, he actually rang Senator Carr’s office and said, ‘I’m going to ask you a question about this particular dam.’ So what did he do? He comes in here and reads out a brief—I think the only brief he had at question time, the one that he was warned about—but he had the wrong brief. What do you have to do to assist a minister? Indeed, Senator Faulkner and Senator Conroy were trying to assist him during question time as well. Senator Faulkner unfortunately let out some words that Senator Kemp misunderstood as having been said by Senator Carr. But really, Senator Carr had no idea. It was an embarrassment. The people of Australia clearly deserve better ministerial representation in this place.

Prime Minister Rudd made a promise to the Australian people that there would be accountability, that there would be transparency and that ministers would give full and proper answers. What we saw today from Senator Carr was obfuscation writ large in relation to every single area that he was asked about. Senator Carr has dismally failed on all the counts that Mr Rudd says that we as the Australian people can judge him on. (Time expired)

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wanted to say first of all that I was disappointed that Senator Carr did not pick up more quickly the import of the question I asked about energy efficiency. It was basically to recognise that we are going to have a carbon price, that a carbon price is going to increase the cost of energy to Australian consumers, and that that will have a disproportionate impact on low-income earners. I think we all accept that that is the case. The Garnaut report out this afternoon on the emissions trading system acknowledges that as well.

The point I was making to Senator Carr was to say that cash payments and low-interest loans do not work and that a far more desirable option is to use money from the auction of permits to pollute to invest in energy efficiency. It is the old saying: if you give people a fish, you feed them for a day; if you teach them how to fish, you feed them for life. The proposal with energy efficiency is this: if you assist people to upgrade their homes to be more energy efficient then their energy bills are going to be less and it is going to be less permanently over time because you have fully insulated their house and you have reduced the cost of their hot water by installing solar hot water. The Greens have thought about this for a long time. We have the EASI policy initiative to upgrade the whole of Australia’s existing housing stock—7.4 million houses—and that takes into account of course all rental accommodation, because there is no incentive at the moment for landlords to upgrade when their tenants are in a position where they have to pay regardless. This would allow us to spend money up-front retrofitting the country and reducing people’s power bills permanently. Do you give them a small amount of cash in their hand, which is inflationary, or do you invest the money in giving them lower power bills permanently?

I am pleased to say that Professor Garnaut in his report today acknowledges that investment in energy efficiency is one of the ways that you can help low-income households. I really welcome the fact that he has said that. I welcome the fact that there is a recognition of the importance of energy efficiency, but now I am delighted that Senator Carr said this afternoon, ‘I would have to agree,’ when I asked him if the government would consider implementing the Greens’ Energy Efficiency Access and Savings Initiative, or EASI, for investment in retrofitting 7.4 million households across Australia. I am very pleased that the minister has said that they will consider implementing it, that they agree in relation to energy efficiency, and I look forward to working with the government to see if we can roll out energy efficiency. The other advantage of it, above cash payments, is that it helps with the structural adjustment to help declining communities. There are going to be some communities that are losers in a low carbon economy, but they can be made winners if you introduce new industries. If we made solar hot water compulsory and if the government paid up-front then there would be a whole new industry, a massive expansion in energy efficiency technology. That would mean rolling out that technology, employing people in those fields, in those jobs. And, of course, that would mean not only the manufacture of those energy efficiency technologies but also their initial installation and their maintenance. There would be jobs around that whole new low carbon economy. It is also a support for public infrastructure, because you would not only do it for private housing but also move into the commercial sector. It has the advantage of being anti-inflationary, it gives you long-term lower energy prices and it assists in new job creation in the new low carbon economy. It is a win all around.

There is no disadvantage to the scheme of using money that you get from selling the permits—and Professor Garnaut is recommending 100 per cent auctioning—and I hope that the government will agree with him and recognise that, for this system to have integrity, auctioning the permits is the way to go. I also welcome it dovetailing with international emissions trading schemes so Australia is not out on its own, that we are ready to dovetail with other schemes. I also recognise the importance of Professor Garnaut saying that we should not be taking agriculture and forestry in straightaway because the data is not good enough to have integrity in the scheme as yet. But I am concerned about shifting the burden to the future. I do not want to have a scheme which is tightened up later. We should be taking the tightening now and tightening further later on. Because the science is moving very fast, I am concerned that if we think we have it right to start with we are going to leave future generations with a terrible burden. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.