Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Scullion. I refer to the minister's answer in the Senate yesterday where he referred to Budget Paper No. 2, and I quote:

If you look carefully, the $409 million had a contribution of $355 million, of which $239 million was a save but the other $115 million came back into the budget in terms of our savings.

Given that the minister's own arithmetic yesterday in question time does not add up and Budget Paper No. 2 does not reflect the minister's numbers, does the minister maintain his answers contain accuracy, not just fantasy?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course, I do stand by the numbers. The numbers do stand at both $239 million as a proportion of that and at $115 million. Many senators opposite would be interested to learn that $54.1 million of those funds were invested, as we promised before the election. That is what we on this side do; we make an election promise and we stick to it. There is $2.5 million for community engagement police officers, $3.8 million—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! When there is silence on my left, we will proceed.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is $3.8 million for the Child Abuse Task Force; $13.4 million for Indigenous education engagement through the Sporting Chance Program. Of course, that would be very popular with those on the other side. They were the 3,000 young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men and women, who were told: 'You're in the Clontarf Foundation, but we forgot to put anything in forward estimates.' Well done! It is all right; we have repaired the damage. We have provided $13.4 million, which was accidentally left off your forward estimates. So these people now actually have a future, as a part of what I think is one of the greatest engagement programs around, the Clontarf Foundation.

Of course, people working and living in very remote areas are very dependent on renewable energy and we have ensured that the Outback Power program of $10.6 million will in fact be maintained.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question: I refer to the portfolio budget statement of the Prime Minister's department which at page 48 shows a reduction in the funding to remote Australia' strategies, which includes support for remote housing. Is the minister prepared to repeat his guarantee to the Senate yesterday that there will be no cuts to remote housing? If not, can the minister outline what other programs for remote communities will be cut.?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am prepared to repeat that guarantee. As you would be aware—or maybe aware—Senator, through the President, is that we deliver that housing through NPARIH, and NPARIH, as I have said, is not subject to any savings. It is not a part of the savings regime.

But I did say yesterday—and perhaps it is an opportunity for me to seek a clarification in this regard: in an answer to yesterday's question time, I stated in relation to the National Partnership on Remote Indigenous Housing that we will no longer be continuing the national partnership and we are now having negotiations through a bilateral round. What I intended to say was that we will be negotiating separate bilateral agreements under the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing. But the short answer to your question is: of course I stick with my words of yesterday.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question: I refer to the minister's assertion yesterday that 'It beggars belief to know that the Commonwealth is actually delivering municipal services.' Given municipal services include water, sewerage and rubbish collection, can the minister guarantee that no Indigenous community will lose their services under this government?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When I said it beggars belief, I was indicating that just a perfunctory scrutiny of section 51 of the Constitution generally lays out in blicky blocky parts what is the responsibility of the statement and territories, what is the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth government. In regard to municipal services, it has always been around local government who have delayed that.

Over some time in some jurisdictions, not all, you will not find any provision of municipal services through the Commonwealth government. Over some time, the municipal services have been provided by government. It is this government's intention that they go back to being the responsibilities of states and territories as it is, for example, in New South Wales and other jurisdictions. We are entering into negotiations in good faith with states and territories— (Time expired)

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Ronaldson. Can the minister advise the Senate of the positive steps the government is taking in the budget to assist veterans and their families and the value of any recent commentary on these measures?

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Bernardi for his question and acknowledge his long standing interest in veterans' affairs. I say it is nice to have a question about the budget—so far, a no good from the Labor Party in relation to this. They have lost interest, and I wonder why. Zig and Zag aren't here. I was waiting for a question. I did not get one yesterday and I am pleased to have one today.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ronaldson, just answer the question.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Abbott government is very proudly putting over $12 billion into veterans' affairs in the 2014-15 budget; $6.5 billion in pensions and income support; and $5.4 million in health services. This is $12 billion, and this figure is very important because, if you look at the quantum of that figure, that is the same quantum of Labor's legacy of debt—$12,000 million is the same amount we are spending on veterans' affairs. This is the magnitude of the legacy that has been left those opposite.

I want to go through some of the budget commitments today for Senator Bernardi. We are delivering of course on our DFRB/DFRDB indexation commitment opposed by those opposite for three long years—delivered and delivered in full. We are putting $1 million back into advocacy funding—again, ripped out from those advocacy services providing services to veterans all over this nation, the length and breadth of this nation, and just ripped out by the former minister. We are expanding mental health services for veterans. We are recognising— (Time expired)

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Thank you for that answer, Minister. Can the minister further inform the Senate of the specific measures in the budget to address the mental health challenges facing veterans and their families?

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't think it is very funny. If you want to laugh at it, that it entirely up to you. If you think it is funny, that is a reflection on you. I am pleased to inform the Senate this budget allows for greater access for eligible veterans for treatment for diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression without the need to establish that their mental health condition is related to service.

From 1 July this year, we will also pay for treatment for diagnosed alcohol and substance abuse disorders. I can also inform the Senate that funding will be made available under Medicare for a new physical and mental health assessment for ex-serving personnel to help their GPs identify any health concerns early and to treat or refer appropriately to other services. The government continues to support the Veterans and Veterans Family Counselling Service, a free and confidential service which specialises in counselling for veterans. (Time expired)

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Once again, I thank the minister and I ask if he could explain how the government's budget announcements combined with other measures will achieve better mental health outcomes for veterans now and into the future?

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can, and thank you Senator Bernardi. The new look Prime Ministerial Advisory Council on mental health issues, which I announced on 13 March, elevates and highlights the government's commitment to treating the mental health conditions and needs of the veteran ex-service community. We will consider, via PMAC, high level and strategic issues and provide advice to the Prime Minister and myself about future directions for veterans mental health policy. The PMAC will be chaired by former Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Russ Crane. Vice Admiral Crane, who will be known to a lot of people in this chamber, like the government, is committed to ensuring that the mental health assistance to veterans and their families is relevant, forward-thinking and achieves the right outcomes. I am very pleased that Ben Roberts-Smith VC will be the deputy chair. He brings the perspective of a younger veteran. Ryan Stokes will also join PMAC and I want to acknowledge the long history of support of the Stokes family for the veteran and ex-service community. (Time expired)

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Finance representing the Treasurer. The budget plans to terminate the Automotive Transformation Scheme by 1 January 2018, some three years earlier than planned. The budget papers specify cuts of $618.5 million over eight years from 2013-14. Given that the scheme has a critical role in the restructuring and diversifying of the automotive components industry once Ford, Holden and Toyota cease manufacturing in Australia, what consultation and economic modelling has the government done on the job losses, business closures and lost manufacturing output this budget measure will have on the 33,000 direct employees of the automotive components sector and its multiplier effect? How does this fit in with Minister Cormann's statement to the chamber yesterday that the government wants to fix the economy by 'creating a stronger environment in which all businesses large and small can prosper'?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Xenophon for that question. He quite right: this government does want to create an environment where all businesses, small and large, can prosper. We are doing that by implementing the strong agenda for a stronger, more prosperous economy that we took to the last election. Of course, the budget that was delivered by Joe Hockey on Tuesday night is an important next step as we implement that agenda.

In relation to subsidies for the car industry, what we have done in this budget is to face the facts, and the facts are that Holden and Toyota have followed others previously in saying that they will no longer manufacture cars in Australia. As such, it is entirely appropriate that from 1 January 2018 onwards we will not continue to provide for subsidies towards manufacturers, given that at that point in time they will no longer be in Australia manufacturing cars.

Having said all that, we are very conscious of the fact that there is the need for an appropriate transition through the period between now and when Holden and Toyota stop manufacturing in Australia. The Abbott government is working very closely with relevant state governments and with Holden and Toyota to work through that transition. Indeed, we have made funding available to facilitate that transition. And we expect that Holden and Toyota also will provide appropriate support to their employees to assist them and their families through the transition of what has been caused by the decisions they have announced.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The question related to the component manufacturers, not to Holden and Toyota. How does the government respond to Richard Riley, the CEO of the Federation of Automotive Product Manufacturers who said yesterday that the cuts will severely impact on the ability of the sector to restructure and transition post the departure of the vehicle manufacturers? Does the government acknowledge Mr Riley's concern on behalf of his members that unless this move is reversed 'thousands of jobs could be lost in the sector within the next 18 months'?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Xenophon for his supplementary. No, we don't agree with that proposition. What I would like to point out in this context is that, as part of our budget, the government has actually established the $476 million Industry Skills Fund to support businesses seeking to enter the export market diversify or improve competitiveness in the global market. This industry skills investment fund is a strategic vehicle for supporting businesses to be competitive in the global market and to grow the Australian economy. It will commence on 1 January 2015 and will deliver up to 200,000 targeted training places and support services over four years. It addresses key industry feedback provided in particular to the Vocational Education and Training Reform Task Force about the need for skills training to be responsive and relevant to business needs.

So this government is working through a series of practical initiatives— (Time expired)

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I will have another go. What does the government say to automotive product manufacturers' concerns that the slashing of the automotive transformation scheme will render it ineffective and will not only create huge investment uncertainty in the sector but could hasten the departure of vehicle manufacturers from Australia and in turn destroy any real chance of component manufacturers successfully restructuring?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The one thing that has put irreversible pressure on manufacturing in Australia is the bad performance of the previous Labor government over the last six years. The previous government killed manufacturing in Australia over the last six years, pushing up the cost of doing business with the carbon tax and choking business with all of the additional red tape—in particular in the workplace relations area. If we want to be competitive internationally in manufacturing we have got to focus on—

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, my point of order is on relevance. The question relates to the slashing of the Automotive Transformation Scheme not in relation to other matters. It is in relation to the impact of this particular scheme on the automotive components sector.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do draw the minister's attention to the question. Minister, you have 31 seconds remaining.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But you cannot consider one without the other. Obviously, anything that pushes up the cost of doing business in Australia, which makes our manufacturing sector in Australia less competitive, is going to have implications on the sustainability of manufacturing into the future. The decisions made by the previous government did push up the cost of doing business recklessly and irresponsibly. What we are doing is facing the facts. You cannot continue to provide for subsidies to manufacturing that will no longer happen post a particular period. (Time expired)

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Brandis as Minister for the Arts. I refer to the minister's decision to abolish the $6.4 million Get Reading! program. I also refer to his well-known love of books, with the construction of not one but two taxpayer funded bookshelves to house his taxpayer funded book collection. Given the minister is happy for taxpayers to fund his own reading, why is he cutting a program that encourages other Australians to read?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity offered by Senator Singh's question to explain to the Senate some of the initiatives within the Arts portfolio which the government has announced in the budget, because—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I am waiting to hear the answer.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Singh, as you know as the shadow spokesman for the arts in this chamber, the arts budget covers a variety of different creative activities. Australia can be very, very proud indeed of its arts companies, its arts practitioners and its arts administrators.

Senator Wong interjecting —

And they do too, Senator Wong. I am delighted say they do. One of the initiatives that the government did announce as part of the budget—and this in a time of straitened financial circumstances, I might say, thanks to the legacy of Senator Wong and her colleagues on the opposition front bench—was an increase in funding to the Australian Ballet School to enable the Australian Ballet School—

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The question was about the Get Reading! program. We know about Senator Brandis's bookshelves; we want to hear about why the government is cutting the reading program.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis, you need to come to the question.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! You still have 51 seconds remaining.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was just trying to put the question into context for the honourable senator, because the money that the Australian taxpayer invests in the arts, of course, is spread across a variety of genres. If I may, I did want to steal a little of the time to congratulate the Australian Ballet School on the additional $1 million—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. We do value the contribution to the ballet. The specific question is about the Get Reading! program. Now we have 28 seconds.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis, at the 51-second mark—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We could buy every kid—you need to address the question, George.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Conroy! At the 51-second mark, Senator Brandis, I reminded you of the question. You need to address the question. You have 28 seconds remaining.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Singh for the opportunity. Now turning to the Get Reading! Program, Senator Singh, you should be aware from the questions you asked at estimates during the February estimates round that not all of the funds in the Get Reading! program had been allocated. In fact, most of the funds in the Get Reading! program had not been allocated. So, in seeking economies within the arts budget so we could fund beneficial things like the residence of the Australian Ballet School, we looked elsewhere— (Time expired)

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Let us see how we go with this one. I refer to the $9.5 million cut to the Indigenous Languages Support program. Given the Prime Minister has claimed he will be a Prime Minister for Aboriginal affairs, why are the government and this minister ripping funding from a program that preserves and revives Indigenous languages?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again, as I pointed out in relation to the Get Reading! program, so was also the case with the Indigenous Languages Support program: not all of the funding within that program had been allocated. So, when the government addressed the arts budget, economies were sought among other things from programs which had not been fully expensed. That enabled us to keep the economies within the arts budget very low—relatively low. The arts community did very well out of this budget. It also gave us the flexibility to introduce new measures. I mentioned the residence of the Australian Ballet School. Another is the allocation of additional funding to Creative Partnerships Australia within the arts budget so as to enable them to enhance their— (Time expired)

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I refer the minister to his 2007 claim that the minister who had been most generous to the arts in terms of funding was 'me'. Given the government has ripped more than $100 million from the arts funding across Australia, isn't it now more accurate to say that he is the minister who has been the most destructive for the arts.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Singh. I am flattered that you read my 2007 speech to the National Press Club. Indeed, it was the case that in 2007 the Howard government, which that year brought back its 10th consecutive budget surplus, had a lot of extra money to spend on the arts, as it had a lot of extra money to spend on other beneficial social programs and a lot of extra money to spend on tax cuts. But you know what? After six years of Labor government there is not a lot of extra money. In fact, there is no money; there is $123 billion of accumulated budget deficits, and for that you need look no further than to your colleague Senator Wong, who was the finance minister who presided over those accumulated budget deficits. So look no further than Senator Wong for the answer to your question— (Time expired)