Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Main Committee will now consider the bill in detail. In accordance with standing order 149 the committee will first consider the schedule of the bill.

Gary Nairn (Eden-Monaro, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

May I suggest that it might suit the convenience of the Main Committee to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the order shown in the schedule which has been circulated to honourable members. I also take the opportunity to indicate to the Main Committee that the proposed order for consideration of portfolios’ estimates has been discussed with the Opposition and other non-government members, and there has been no objection to what is proposed.

The schedule read as follows—

Employment and Workplace Relations Portfolio

Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Portfolio

Industry, Tourism and Resources Portfolio

Environment and Water Resources Portfolio

Transport and Regional Services Portfolio

Defence Portfolio

Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Portfolio

Human Services Portfolio

Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Portfolio

Education, Science and Training Portfolio

Immigration and Citizenship Portfolio

Health and Ageing Portfolio

Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio

Attorney-General’s Portfolio

Defence Portfolio (continued)

Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio

Treasury Portfolio

Finance and Administration Portfolio

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is it the wish of the Main Committee to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the order suggested by the minister? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Employment and Workplace Relations Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $4,540,889,000

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In this consideration in detail I have a series of questions for the minister on the appropriations for the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations. Obviously this is an opportunity for the minister to inform the Australian people about details of the appropriations and we anticipate he will take that opportunity in full. Can I specifically direct the minister to his comments in the parliament that the $4.1 million spent on air costs—the actual advertising time—for the first tranche of the industrial relations ads was financed from the line item workplace relations reform ‘raising awareness’ of the Office of Workplace Services and the Office of Employment Advocate. Obviously, these agencies have been renamed in the meantime. This was a MYEFO entry showing $7.3 million in this financial year and $7.2 million in the forthcoming financial year.

The minister in parliament indicated in general terms that the government’s industrial relations advertising was being financed out of this line item. Can I ask the minister to confirm the following: that for the first tranche of the advertising campaign, the costs of buying the advertising time were $4.1 million—that was for a six-day campaign. Can the minister advise of the costs incurred for the first tranche of the advertising campaign in market research, creative work, preproduction and production? Can the minister verify here what he has verified publicly—that is, that there will be a second tranche of advertising? Can I direct the minister to a report in today’s Australian that on this second tranche of advertising the government will spend $36.5 million? Can the minister confirm whether or not that figure is correct? If it is not correct—it is a report in today’s newspaper—can the minister then advise of the correct figure?

Following advising of the correct figure, will the minister advise whether the line item being used to fund the second tranche of the advertising campaign is the workplace relations reform ‘raising awareness’ line item, which would mean expenditure in total is no more than $7.3 million this year and $7.2 million next year? Can the minister answer those questions and verify whether the government has any plans for further advertising beyond the second tranche, which has been publicly acknowledged by the government?

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for her questions. There were a number of detailed questions there. In relation to the first tranche of advertising, I cannot confirm that the exact figure was $4.1 million. I am happy to provide her with whatever the exact figure was for the media buy over that period, but I do not have those details in front of me. What I can say is that what I said in parliament was absolutely right—that the allocation of funding for the first tranche was coming out of existing funds that were noted in the MYEFO, which was tabled in parliament, from memory, in February. What I said in parliament was absolutely right.

In relation to the second tranche, $36.5 million is a figure I have never seen before. I am not familiar with that. I think it is a creation of someone’s vivid imagination. I note that a number of journalists, particularly at the ABC, speculated that the first tranche would be $50 million or $60 million. On Radio National one morning a broadcaster speculated that. How wrong they were. It was 10 per cent or less of that. That just goes to show that there is a very large amount of fanciful speculation around at the moment.

In relation to any further advertising, as I have said before, we reserve the right to respond to misinformation that is put out by various parties. We have an obligation to properly inform individuals of their entitlements at work. We make no apology for that. It is vitally important that people are fully aware of their rights at work, as they stand under the law and not as a creation of the fanciful imagination of someone in an advertising firm who is serving the interests of a client. We will undertake further advertising because we have an obligation to properly inform Australians of where they can go to get information about workplace laws—the information about appropriate levels of pay and remuneration or classification. I think people would like to know what classification they are entitled to. I only hope there were some businesses that had access to the Workplace Infoline or took advantage of the Workplace Infoline in relation to pay classification, even when it came to signing individual contracts. In one more celebrated case that has had some public recognition, the individual contracts were based on awards, which the Labor Party thinks were okay—a 45c an hour trade-off for all penalty rates. Any rate, that is for the Labor Party.

From our perspective, we think it is appropriate that employers and employees have a one-stop phone number that they can go to. The traffic to that phone number has dropped quite substantially since the advertising campaign was terminated. The advertising campaign led to a very significant increase in the number of phone calls—around 800 per day—and then there was a drop after the advertising stopped. Indeed, the number of hits on the website also dropped dramatically. The number increased dramatically with the advertising and has tapered off since the advertising stopped, which is evidence that the advertising did work. It did properly inform individuals and corporations of their obligations. It was a one-stop shop that people wanted to go to. It is also the case that with the new agencies—the Office of Workplace Services being replaced by the Workplace Ombudsman, and the Office of the Employment Advocate being replaced by the Workplace Authority—there is an obligation— (Time expired)

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I direct the minister to the fact that we are actually talking about the appropriations bill and the appropriation of taxpayers’ money. In those circumstances I think the Australian taxpayers, through this parliament, have got a right to know what their money is being spent on—that, of course, is the essence of having the budget process. I ask the minister again to answer the questions he did not answer that time. I understand the only answer I got to my questions that time was that the minister had undertaken to the parliament to supply the opposition with the exact figure for the advertising space used for the first tranche of the industrial relations advertising. The figure known to the opposition to date is $4.1 million. We look forward to receipt of the accurate figure, which the minister has undertaken to provide. I ask the minister to also undertake that he will supply to the opposition the costs of the market research, creative work, preproduction and production of the advertisements in that first tranche of advertising.

Secondly, I ask the minister to verify whether there will be a second tranche of advertising. Various statements from the government have certainly publicly indicated there will be a second tranche of advertising. If there is to be a second tranche of advertising, what is it going to cost? That is a figure that ought to be known to the government. If it is not known to the minister now then the minister can undertake to provide it in this place before it rises this evening. It ought not to be a hard figure to ascertain. It is not a confidential or secret figure; it is a figure that taxpayers have got a right to know. It is a very simple question: how much is the government intending to spend on the second tranche of industrial relations advertising?

Finally, will there be further tranches of advertising after the second tranche? So, can we have the other costs of the first tranche; can you tell us what the figure is for the second tranche; and will there be further tranches of advertising after that? Can the minister also direct this parliament’s attention to where this appropriation is made in the budget papers? Simple question. Under the Westminster system, this is the minister’s responsibility; this is the parliament. We are having the appropriations debate. We are entitled to ask questions about the appropriations. We are entitled to expect that they will be reasonably and fully answered.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lalor can use her best schoolmarm voice and try and admonish me for not giving her the appropriate answers. Let me say to her: I am prepared to provide the information in relation to the first tranche when I can obtain the appropriate figures. Secondly, there have been no final decisions made in relation to the second tranche, and a third tranche has not even been contemplated.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister confirm the time frame within which the government will consider the second tranche? Can the minister confirm what line item in the appropriations before the parliament now will be used to support the expenditure that would come with the second tranche? I understand from what the minister has just said that they have not taken a final decision about the second tranche. That is as it may be and I will accept what the minister has said. But if there is contemplation of a second tranche then there must be an appropriation for it. Where is the appropriation in the budget bills that are before the parliament now? If the minister could identify that appropriation then that would at least give the Australian public an idea of the outer reaches of what it is that the government might spend should it determine to engage in a second tranche.

The reason, of course, for having the budget papers is so that people can ascertain what it is that is planned to be spent. Yes, there are times when appropriations are in the budget papers and they are not fully expended. If the government determines not to go ahead with the second tranche, that may be one of those occasions. But there must be an appropriation in these budget documents for financing the second tranche. Could the minister direct the attention of the parliament to where that appropriation line item is to be found?

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know this is going to defy commonsense, but I am not sure what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is getting at. If I say that we have not made any final decisions in relation to the second tranche, why would she think that we have allocated money to it? We do not know how big it is going to be; we are not sure of the timing, when it is going to happen. What we do know is that there is a great thirst amongst the general public for accurate information, factual information about the workplace relations system that is not made up of spin—the sort of spin that the ACTU is trying to convince the general public of.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I finally, on this matter of the advertising, just ask the minister to confirm that in no part of the appropriations bills before the parliament now is the financing of the second tranche dealt with—that is, if a second tranche of advertising is to occur, it is to be financed separately to the appropriations bills that are before the parliament for consideration now?

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I cannot confirm that because, firstly, I do not know how large the second tranche will be and, secondly, it may come from a reallocation of resources from other places.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the minister would be aware, if a reallocation is, in his terms, ‘made’ then that is a question of a program being underspent. That is obviously not something knowable at this stage. What I am asking him to confirm is that the government, should it determine to proceed with the second tranche of advertising, will make a special appropriation that is not dealt with in these budget papers. I accept by that stage there may be underspends in line items for the department, so it may be that the allocation to that second tranche does not necessarily trigger a full additional allocation to the department—because there may be some underspends that can be redirected. But my question to the minister is quite simple. We have the appropriations bills before the parliament. They deal in line item detail with the expenditure of the department. I am just asking him to confirm that the costs or potential costs of the second tranche of advertising do not appear in these budget papers.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unless there is an item that I have missed that specifically describes a line item for a second tranche of workplace relations advertisements, the question from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is quite ridiculous. As I have said, no final decision has been made in relation to a second tranche of advertising. That is not difficult to understand: no final decision has been made in relation to a second tranche of advertising.

Of course it could not have been contemplated when the budget was brought down in early May because no final decision in relation to a second tranche of advertising has been made. Therefore, when you work out exactly how you are going to undertake the information campaign and what is required and demanded by the Australian public, you will seek out the appropriate funds for the expenditure in relation to that matter. Obviously that will involve dialogue between me, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Finance and Administration, the Treasurer, I expect, and a range of other people. But there is no great rocket science to that. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is trying to be cute about this and trying to find the angle on potential advertising, if she thinks that somehow we have buried a huge amount of gold in the budget papers, then she is wrong—because we have not made a final decision in relation to a second tranche of advertising.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am trying to get to the facts of the matter. Can the minister confirm that, in relation to the selection of the advertising agency that conducted the first tranche of advertising, there was an abbreviated tender process? Can the minister confirm that it was a two-agency pitch—that is, two agencies were asked to tender? Can the minister advise why a more rigorous process was not followed? Can he advise whether the conduct for the selection of this advertising agency was consistent with the government’s purchasing arrangements? Can he advise whether there is a precedent for a two-agency pitch? Can he advise whether the objectives of the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications were satisfied with the way in which these tender arrangements were engaged in?

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The MCGC process does not fall within my department. It is a process that I understand is run by the Government Communications Unit out of the Prime Minister’s department. Therefore, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s questions are more properly addressed to another department.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the minister mean by that answer that it was not the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations that selected the advertising agency and considered the tenders that came from advertising agencies for the work?

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can confirm that the advertising agency was chosen by the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications, not by me or my department.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to be clear about this. I understand from what the minister is saying that the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications runs the tender process and selects the successful tenderer but that the appropriation that is then used to pay the successful tenderer is a departmental appropriation—that is, the first tranche of the advertising campaign was paid for by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, but the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations does not play a role in conducting the tender or selecting the successful tenderer. Is that correct?

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, we did not run the tender. The tender was run by the MCGC and the Government Communications Unit out of the Prime Minister’s department. The funding for the program comes out of our department, but there are a clear set of rules and guidelines, as I understand it, for government communications, and that was fully adhered to. It was the MCGC that chose the winning tenderer, and the funding for the campaign comes from my department. There are people far more qualified to determine advertising success or failure than me. I am a mere novice at this communications game.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like everyone else in this place, I relish the prospect of growing jobs and growing employment. It is regrettable, however, that in the seat of Werriwa—as is the case in the seat of Macarthur—the unemployment rate is almost double the national average. I would like to put to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations some of the underlying assumptions in relation to unemployment. Could the minister confirm that Budget Paper No. 1 states that commodity price stimulus has been evident in the labour market, particularly in relation to construction and mining employment, which grew by 7.6 per cent through the March quarter of 2007? Minister, can you confirm that Budget Paper No. 1 also states that the resource rich states of Queensland and Western Australia grew at a much faster rate—that, in fact, the resource rich states of Queensland and Western Australia grew at a weighted average of 4.9 per cent in 2005-06 compared to 1.9 per cent in New South Wales and Victoria over that same period?

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Werriwa for his detailed question. I do not have that information in front of me, but I am happy to have it investigated. What I do note is that in the employment figures that came out last week the most significant jobs growth was in fact in New South Wales, which was not one of the states immediately identified by the member for Werriwa. That would please the member for Werriwa, coming as he does from an electorate that still has an unreasonably high level of unemployment—around 7.1 per cent, I think.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is 7.6 per cent.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is 7.6 per cent. I am sorry; I find it difficult to remember all 150 electorates. Unemployment is still too high in parts of Australia, such as the Illawarra and Werriwa, yet in the seat of Lindsay unemployment is 4.4 per cent—and I understand Lindsay is an electorate adjoining Werriwa. What I do know is that the unemployment rate, at 4.2 per cent, is at the lowest level since November 1974. Since the government introduced its Work Choices legislation, we have seen a significant surge in the number of small businesses employing Australians, and that has to be linked. Even Saul Eslake, from ANZ—who is not normally seen as a great friend of the government—said on morning radio that the government’s industrial relations reforms must have contributed to the surge of employment.

Over 360,000 new jobs have been created since the government introduced its new workplace relations regime on 27 March last year, and around 95 per cent—I think the Prime Minister told parliament today it was 94 per cent—of those jobs are full time. As the OECD said, prescriptive labour laws are the greatest barrier to entry into the workforce for those most disadvantaged in the community. The OECD were directly referring in many ways to the unfair dismissal laws that the Labor Party introduced, which created a very heavy burden for small business, leading to many small business people saying that for the first time they were dissuaded from employing people with no employment history because the risk of employing those people was far too great. As a former Minister for Small Business and Tourism, I can tell you that is the single biggest issue for small business. The reintroduction of the unfair dismissal laws for small business will be a brace around the neck of the Labor Party in the lead-up to the next election, if they are seeking to gain the support of the small business community, because the small business community hated those laws and they hate any proposal to go back to those laws—and, of course, that is Labor Party policy.

As for the commodity price stimulus, I am happy to have a look at that. Obviously commodity prices are high at the moment. It should not be considered irrelevant that many businesses also hedged their commodity prices so that the flowthrough to businesses, unless they are trading spot, is hedged and not necessarily a true reflection of the actual spot price at the time—they would not claim that the spot price is in fact flowing directly through to their balance sheets if they have hedged their sales. Therefore, you may not necessarily count the massive commodity prices at the moment as directly flowing through to company balance sheets. There may well be intermediaries there that are capturing the benefits of the hedging, and many of them may be located offshore. Who knows? What I do know is that there is a significant stimulus out there for employment growth and it is called a strong economy. That is flowing right through the country.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Following on from that question, Minister, is it not also the case that Budget Paper No. 1 states that the Australian economy continues to benefit from the strong growth and world demand in our resources sector and that labour and capital will continue to gravitate towards the mining and construction sectors as a response to growing commodity prices?

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course there is a flow through to the economy of strong commodity prices—of course. There is no dispute about that. We are the beneficiaries of some terrific economic times and specifically not only the massive demand in growth out of China and India but also the recovery in the Japanese economy have had a positive impact. Japan remains one of our biggest commodity markets. I stand to be corrected, but I think very little of our coal actually goes to China, for example. A lot of our coal goes to non-China, non-India markets. But overall you cannot dispute the fact that China and India are helping to stimulate significant demand for commodities and we are reaping the benefit of that.

Naturally enough, that demand for commodities is reflected in the more attractive economic circumstances for exploration and, the more attractive exploration is, the more likely companies will find resources and then the development of those resources with higher commodity prices becomes more attractive. If it is more attractive then there is obviously a greater prospect of appropriate return on investment for those mining companies. So you now are seeing major projects with significant lead times that are far more economically attractive now than they were at a lower commodity price. That is flowing through to construction and through to hospitality services in some of the more remote areas. What we have seen over the last few months is a significant surge in employment in retail and in hospitality. Those industries are lower paying industries than the mining sector or, for that matter, construction. But the surge in employment in retail and hospitality is effectively nationwide. And the fact that in the last few weeks we have seen the unemployment rate drop significantly in South Australia and Tasmania is not necessarily directly as a result of the mining boom but because those economies, as reflected in the national accounts, are starting to perform much better. So if the member for Werriwa is driving at the fact that the economy is doing well today only because of the mining boom, then I think he sorely underestimates the impact of good economic management and the fact that, for example, in the year 2000, when seven out of our top 10 trading partners were in recession or depression, Australia had the fastest growing economy in the OECD. That comes about because we have a diversified economy, an economy that is over 75 per cent services. Mining and agriculture combined represent probably no more than 15 per cent of GDP. What we are seeing are the benefits of a diversified economy. Obviously when you have a resources boom the benefits of that boom do flow through to other industries, but it cannot and will not be the sole determinant of a strong economy. For example, productivity will be dampened a bit this year by the worst drought in 100 years. Naturally enough, farm production is down significantly and that is one of the challenges we have in managing what is a finely tuned but well-balanced economy.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, Treasury does forecast that there will be a decline in productivity this year through to the next financial year. I do recall what you said in response to my opening question, particularly where you wanted to make some claims with respect to Work Choices being able to deliver greater productivity in workplaces. But, having regard to the forecast by Treasury—that is, that there will be a decline in productivity over the next financial year—do not you think that is inconsistent with the position that you are now putting in relation to Work Choices delivering greater productivity in workplaces in this country?

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I do not, for two reasons: one is, as I outlined in my response just 30 seconds ago, obviously the impact of a drought is significant when it comes to farm productivity, and that has an impact on the economy. Naturally enough, if a farmer and four farmhands are working on a farm and they have got no crop, productivity is down. And that is a significant issue. It is also the case that we have significant initiatives in the budget that the Labor Party voted against—that is, the Welfare to Work initiatives. On 1 July those initiatives will create a work obligation of 15 hours a week for around 233,000 Australians of working age who are currently in receipt of a single parent pension or a partnered parent pension. Those people who are coming into the workforce will represent probably the greatest surge of new employees into the marketplace since World War II in absolute numbers; there will be nearly a quarter of a million people coming into the workplace. Some of them do work. How much they work we are not sure, but it is estimated that around 140,000 of the 233,000—maybe a few more—are currently undertaking some work.

That infusion of labour into the marketplace is going to have a dampening impact on productivity because these people are essentially unskilled. They have been out of the workforce for an extended period of time in many cases; in other cases they have chosen to not be in the workforce, and therefore they are entering the workplace with low skills and need to be skilled up. Given the fact that, as revealed in these budget papers, the government is significantly increasing funding for training and is increasing funding for education, you can see that we are going to make a contribution to the skilling up of these people. Naturally enough, when you create a surge of nearly a quarter of a million workers into a workforce where there are 10.5 million workers, it is going to have an impact on productivity. But, overall, there is no doubt that our workplace relations changes do have a positive impact on productivity, because flexibility helps to deliver better productivity. It is not difficult to work out. If you have a home based mum who is remunerated on the basis of hourly effort and that home based mum is able to work from home and undertake the work at flexible hours of her choosing, then naturally enough it is more likely that she will improve productivity than if she has a very limited and inflexible arrangement on site at a particular workplace. It is also the case that you get the classic example of industrial relations reform helping to deliver better productivity.

The waterfront is the best example of that. The Labor Party was defending a system of 17 crane movements per hour prior to our reform of the waterfront, and after our reform of the waterfront there were 27 crane movements per hour. In fact, a shipping company came to see me recently and said they had massively improved their productivity in relation to shipping activity. They are happy to go on the public record—I just do not have the notes of the meeting in front of me—saying that, through reform of their workplace, they were able to significantly improve productivity, and that is one of the reasons why they are investing in a new ship that is currently being built to service Australian ports. So the evidence is out there that industrial relations reform does help to deliver better productivity. The best evidence is that what takes four hours to deliver in services today took five hours in 1996.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It seems to me that the minister is suggesting that if the unemployment figures are good, because they are low, it is the government’s performance and, indeed, if productivity is declining it is because of the drought. It seems to me that he picks and chooses. I would like to go to something more specific with respect to the costs of polling, market research and creative development of the current campaign ‘A Stronger Safety Net for Working Australians’, in 2007. In fact, in estimates in 2005 it was uncovered that the government spent approximately $55 million on doing exactly that for Work Choices. I would ask the minister if he could identify precisely the costs for the current campaign in those three categories. I will repeat them: market research, creative development and polling used for the development of the Work Choices brand and, indeed, the current campaign.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member for Gorton said that we cannot pick and choose when it comes to the drought versus productivity. He said that we are not in a position where we can claim credit for the lowest unemployment rate in 33 years and we choose to blame lower productivity on the drought. Well, it is no accident that you have the lowest unemployment rate in 33 years. Once upon a time, people used to think that six per cent unemployment was full employment or five per cent unemployment was full employment and a participation rate of 61 per cent or 62 per cent was around full participation. It is no accident that you end up with an unemployment rate of 4.2 per cent and a participation rate of 65 per cent, which is a record. Of course that participation rate will increase in July-August-September to new record levels as Australia embraces Welfare to Work, the same Welfare to Work that the Labor Party opposed. I understand that the $3.7 billion commitment to Welfare to Work will help to increase the number of people involved in the workplace, and that is a good thing. Our very strong view is that the best safety net that can be provided for Australian families is the opportunity for individuals to take up the offer of a job, to earn an income. This is where we and the Labor Party fundamentally disagree. The Labor Party were quite happy to see these people put on the scrap heap, left on ever-revolving welfare; and that is why they voted against our Welfare to Work initiatives. You cannot criticise them too much for that because it follows in a long line of opposition to every economic reform we have undertaken—be it tax reform, paying off the budget debt, setting up a future fund or privatisation. Privatisation was okay when the Labor Party did it; but when we did it, they had a deep-seated philosophical opposition to privatisation. They said, ‘It is the behaviour of capitalists,’ even though they chose to privatise TAA, Qantas, the first tranche of the Commonwealth Bank and a range of others.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Lalor, are you rising on a point of order?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I am seeking to ask a question.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the minister take a question?

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am still answering. I am perfectly entitled to continue. I was finishing my answer.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the Main Committee we can seek to ask a question in the middle of a speech.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the middle of an answer. Okay, please, ask any question you want.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much. The minister is always welcome in the Main Committee if he would like to get some experience in here. My question is: can he respond to that part of the member for Gorton’s question—which was not about privatisation; indeed privatisation is not dealt with in these budget papers—about the market research and polling that went into the development of the Work Choices brand and the cost of that, the cost of which has now been wasted because of the discarding of the brand, and the market research and polling costs that have gone into the new campaign?

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was answering the question where the member for Gorton talked about productivity and the drought. I think it is appropriate that I properly answer his initial question.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was a very brief question.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, he should not have asked it if he did not want it answered. He raised this point. I follow on from that by noting that economic reform helps to deliver lower unemployment rates, that structural reform helps to lower unemployment rates and that, provided all the other economic settings are right, you can get better figures and better outcomes in employment. You can also get better outcomes on productivity, but only if you are prepared to undertake the reforms.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could I ask the minister specifically about the cost that will be expended for market research, creative development and polling used for the development of the Work Choices brand and, similarly, costs for the development of messaging for the government’s current campaign. We understand that there have been changes—they have been debated in the parliament. We just seek to know the costs associated with the original expenditure and the costs for the government changing its position.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that is a question in relation to previous budget papers—prior to these budget papers.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s both, in fact.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These are events that occurred last year—March last year—and I would think that they were in previous budget papers; certainly not in this budget paper. I will seek advice, but I do not think there is anything about Work Choices or any of the expenditure in these current budget papers. We are very happy to talk about Work Choices and our workplace relations system. We are always happy to talk about it because it is one of the reasons why we get to the unemployment rate of 4.2 per cent, with strong economic growth, the foundations for strong productivity growth and the basis upon which you help to build family income. So that is a pretty good formula. Even the member for Gorton, who is a bit wet behind the ears in this place, would understand that. Old Snowy would know—the member for Lingiari is a wise man and would know. He has been around for a very long time and he would be able to verify that you get good economic data only by putting in place the economic reforms that help to deliver it.

I am absolutely convinced that, when it came to marketing programs in the past, years ago, I do not think it was about selling a brand as much as it was about promoting changes to the workplace relations system that took us from a 20th century system that the Labor Party still longs for, and has promised to return to, to a 21st century system of industrial relations where there is flexibility in the workplace and where Australians are empowered to make their dreams come true when it comes to their workplace ambitions, rather than relying on the misguided and at times totally inappropriate third-party intervention of the trade union bosses. I know there is a soft spot amongst the Labor Party brothers and sisters for trade union bosses, because a lot of you guys come from trade union stock. In fact, 70 per cent of the Leader of the Opposition’s frontbench are former trade union officials and, of course, 100 per cent of the parliamentary members of the Labor Party are in fact members of the trade union movement—not that we have got anything against trade unions, mind you. They do a good job for 15 per cent of the electorate.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the minister willing to give way?

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As interesting as all this is, it is not a matter related to the appropriations debate, so could I direct the minister’s attention to the question the member for Gorton put to him about the current budget papers—that is, the cost of creative work, market research and polling associated with the advertising campaign for the government’s changes.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said before to the member for Lalor, these budget papers do not include any of the Work Choices expenditure, nor should they. No, I was asked about Work Choices expenditure and a $55 million campaign. Now, of course that would have been reported in the annual report. The current campaign: there is no current campaign at the moment. There has been a campaign in the last few weeks and, as we pointed out, the allocation for that funding came through in the MYEFO, which was tabled in the House in February, and the Labor Party was so outraged about that advertising campaign and the allocation of funding to that advertising campaign that they did not say a word. Now they have got the member for Lingiari trying his best. Now we are scraping it.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to take you to a different hemisphere, at least as far as your brain is concerned, and that is to ask you about another element of your portfolio arrangements to do with Community Development Employment Programs, which are in your budget papers. Is the minister aware that according to the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations appearance in the Senate estimates committee of 29 May, it is intended from 1 July that many CDEP participants living in high-cost remote areas—note: high cost remote areas—will have their allowable CDEP related income reduced by $2,826 from $23,492 to $20,666, a reduction of some 12 per cent. Does the minister understand the severity of the impact of this income reduction on these Indigenous communities? Can the minister provide information about the total number of CDEP participants living in remote communities who will be affected by these changes? I ask the minister to note particularly—Comrade, I am talking to you!

Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’re always turning your back on us!

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that there are proposals about reducing top-up, as it is referred to. I would like you to find what you understand top-ups to be but, in any event, I want to know whether you understand the implications of these changes on small area labour markets where there are no external job opportunities and what the implications will be on these families and communities when they have their incomes effectively reduced by 12 per cent or almost $3,000. Is the minister aware that a majority of the residents in remote communities of the Northern Territory, South Australia, Queensland, the Kimberley and Western Australia have little or no chance of getting a job that is not CDEP related, given the nature of the small area labour markets? Can the minister tell us how many Aboriginal and Islander communities in Australia, if any, where the job supply exceeds the job demand? Do you understand that in remote communities there is no adequate job market to satisfy the demand for a job for CDEP participants? If you grasp this self-evident fact, how can you explain the reasons stated by the department that the income cut for CDEP workers is so that they will be induced to go out and get a job? On the evidence available in Hansard, the government appears to consider that reducing people’s income will reduce their dependency on welfare and create incentives for people to move into jobs where there are none. If the government has reduced anything, it has reduced CDEP for an unemployment program for a quasi welfare system. Does the minister acknowledge that Indigenous people by and large do not have this attitude of CDEP being a hand-out and does he realise that these people regard CDEP as an opportunity to gain skills and take up any jobs that may arise in their community? Finally, does he know that such people need no incentives to move to employment and in fact would generally welcome an opportunity that currently, as a rule, does not exist?

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Lingiari for that vast number of questions. I will endeavour to get the answers to all of those as well. I am not sure about the timing of the announcement of those particular changes—

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

1 July.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know that. The changes to CDEP with which I am most familiar are the ones where I announced the change that, from 1 July, those areas where there is an unemployment rate of less than seven per cent would have CDEP removed. And that is because there was a very strong view that, in those areas where unemployment was less than seven per cent, there were opportunities for jobs and CDEP had become a continuous program of support which left people falling into a cargo net from which they were rarely able to climb out.

My understanding is that those changes were affecting around 7,000 Indigenous Australians. That is a relatively small number but obviously the changes were significant for them. Those areas were mainly metropolitan areas, but there were some urban fringes where those changes were making a difference. They were broadly supported by the Indigenous leadership of Australia. The aim of those reforms, in abolishing CDEP in those areas where the unemployment rate was less than seven per cent, was to try and get people into work. As I said before, that is the best safety net we could possibly provide to people.

Having said that, we were not simply going to convert them from CDEP recipients and put them on the dole and leave them nowhere. That is why we have beefed up the Structured Training and Employment Program, STEP, which is focused on trying to train people—

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to ask a question.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the minister take a question?

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I was keen to finish.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lingiari—

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not have to take it.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You do not have to, but you will because you are a very nice bloke.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lingiari will ask his question. If the minister is—

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want that on the record, so I am happy to take that. It will go nicely on my campaign brochures.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am fully apprised of the broader policy initiatives and of their implications. The questions I have asked are particular to people who live in small, remote communities and the impact these changes will have on them and their families. I will just give you an example. I was at a place called Minjilang last Friday—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lingiari, you are asking a question—

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am asking a question.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It should be short.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

People were paying $2.50 a litre for fuel.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lingiari—

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can you explain—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lingiari is defying the chair.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am asking a question.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lingiari is defying the chair. When you are given the call to ask a question, you will ask a question and it will be short and it will be brief.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am. Can you tell me—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could you bring your question to a conclusion.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will. Can you tell me what I am supposed to say to a senior Aboriginal man living on the adjacent community of Warruwi—where there is no employment market—who asked me last Friday: ‘Prices are going up but our wages are coming down. Why are you doing that?’

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to look into that specific case. If the member for Lingiari wants to provide me with the information outside of this chamber I would be happy to have a look at it.

I will just say this: the intention of CDEP reform has always been and always will be about trying to get people into work. The changes that we have made are not about the allocation of funds. In fact, the changes to CDEP, I understand, are actually costing more money than continuing with the CDEP as it stands. And therefore we are very focused on how we can get people off CDEP and into work. As for the specific issues raised by the member for Lingiari, I am happy to have a look at them.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $745,671,000

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the minister whether he could detail the measures being taken in the context of Northern Australia to incorporate Aboriginal rangers into the effectiveness of the quarantine and other arrangements being carried on off our northern shores.

Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would be interested to know from the member for Lingiari where difficulties are arising. As I understand it, AQIS makes use of Indigenous officers and, at the same time, our program for avian influenza also incorporates Indigenous communities. I am open to ideas on how to improve the involvement of those who are on the ground and best know the country, but as I understand it a significant number of individual Indigenous officers and communities more generally are involved in our biosecurity efforts.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for his response, but the point I want to get to, Minister, is exactly the relationship that exists between your department and the services which it carries out and those Aboriginal communities. What is envisaged in terms of providing additional training opportunities and indeed employment opportunities for these rangers who would otherwise be earning CDEP? What is proposed in terms of providing additional capacity for your department to provide real jobs for these people carrying out the functions which might otherwise be carried out by one of your agencies or in conjunction with one of your agencies? I understand that the budget papers go to some depth to talk about the proposals to change CDEP employment, including in your department, where functions carried out by your department overlap the CDEP communities—in this case, ranger programs. I would like to know how many rangers you expect to be transferred into full-time employment as a result of initiatives from your department.

Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member. He speaks of real jobs. Obviously, to be employed or seconded to AQIS or Biosecurity Australia would be a real job. We would not be creating jobs to alleviate unemployment issues. Obviously, a significant number of Indigenous persons have a lot to offer our efforts in these fields. We would fully train them as we do all of our officers. We would of course assign job descriptions. We would not waste their time any more than they would want to waste ours. If the member is suggesting that we should—and I am sure he is not—employ people to solve a social or employment problem, then I do not think I am going to be of a great deal of assistance. But if he is suggesting we should look more closely at acquiring the skills and experience that Indigenous persons throughout Northern Australia can bring to the tasks of quarantine and biosecurity surveillance then I agree with him.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With great respect, I am not at great odds here with you, I am just trying to establish the budget papers—

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will address his remarks through the chair.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With great respect to you and through you to the minister, the budget papers refer to a number of jobs, from memory in excess of 800, that will be created as a result of moneys made available through another agency that include something like $12 million; I forget the figure, but an amount of money allocated in the budget to create real jobs in communities and in areas where currently other agencies are employing people to do work under CDEP. I make this observation because it is true that the quarantine services, and Customs and other agencies work closely with these communities and these communities carry out work on their behalf at times. The question is: what number of jobs will arise out of this budget measure in your portfolio?

Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I fear perhaps wrongly that the member for Lingiari is leading me down a dead-end street here. Are you seeking to elicit from me a minimal number of jobs that you can then use against the minister for workplace relations? But, in any event, I will take advice before replying to the member more authoritatively.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No doubt you find the same thing as you move about as we do—that is, you visit many of the rural communities and what people want to talk to you about is certainly issues of quarantine and, more particularly, avian born viruses; bird flu to be specific. What provisions are being made in terms of firstly the modelling undertaken by the department in relation to bird flu; what is the potential impact it would have on our agriculture industries; and, based on that, what provisions and budget provisions are being made with AQIS to address issues at the quarantine levels associated with the bird flu?

Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Werriwa raises a very good point. As he well knows, an outbreak of bird flu in Australia—and, thankfully, we are to date mercifully free of the disease—would be devastating, leaving aside any suggestion of a human pandemic. Our measures have been in place for some time now. We have substantially invested extra resources at border protection and scientific skills upgrade in the 2005 budget. I stand to be corrected, I do not believe there are any new measures in this particular budget in regard to avian influenza, but we do have increased funding on biosecurity more generally. We tackle this first and foremost at the border, so I think I am safe in saying we have employed between 600 and 800 new AQIS officers at this point. I am definitely sure we have employed several hundred more over the last two to three years. We have installed obviously the X-ray machines so that almost all passengers are screened for avian influenza and, of course, passengers arriving from avian influenza affected countries, and 100 per cent postal is X-rayed and inspected if need be. At the same time we have plans with industry. We work very closely with the chief veterinary officer. We have simulated an outbreak of avian influenza in an exercise 12 months ago. We found the system works well but not perfectly and, obviously, involves all jurisdictions and a great many agencies from local government through to state and Commonwealth bodies.

At the same time we have a Northern Australia strategy, which the member for Lingiari would be familiar with, on which we are particularly vigilant. We also have programs in Indonesia, which is most likely to be the stepping-off point for any birds bringing in avian influenza. Our risk profile says that the introduction of avian influenza is most likely to come from wild birds. Here we can take some degree of comfort—not that we rely on it for a moment—from the fact that the particular species which could carry avian influenza are not known to visit Australia. Again, we are on a high state of alert at all times, we have a very high level of expenditure and the industry is on the lookout for any sign of the disease. We also work with small operations—what you could loosely term, without being disrespectful, as backyard operations—and their flying in of geese or ducks that could introduce it. So we take a multifaceted approach. We also work closely with overseas countries, agencies and the like. This is a major preoccupation for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, in relation to the fisheries portfolio, and specifically its impacts on those electorates on the east coast principally in New South Wales, where I come from, can you discuss the initiatives being used presently to plan the build-up of our fishery stocks over the next five years? What restrictions would we be likely to see occur as a consequence of the planning for that? What sort of costs would you anticipate flowing through to the industry?

Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government announced a fishing buyback scheme some nine months ago totalling $150 million to purchase fishermen’s licences and another approximately $70 million for onshore affected businesses and onshore affected communities. The $150 million buyback scheme has now been completed. There has been some funding under the onshore affected businesses, but essentially most of that $70 million under the two programs is still being considered by the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, Senator Abetz.

We have seen a substantial reduction, therefore, in the catch effort in most fisheries, whether it be the northern prawn or south-eastern trawl fisheries. There was only a reduction of about 16 per cent of the effort in the Bass Strait scallop fisheries, which we find very disappointing. Ideally it would have been about 50 per cent, which matches some of the reduction in the other fisheries. It was done by way of a tender system and the tenders put in by the Bass Strait scallop fishermen were not seen to be value for taxpayers’ funds in the way that the tenders in the other fisheries were.

We are starting from a solid base for the management of the long-term sustainability of these fisheries as well as providing a better and more secure income stream for the remaining fishers—I should not just say fishermen. As I understand it, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage will under his powers deem which catches are sustainable and which are not. Senator Campbell, as minister for the environment, in the middle of last year or earlier announced a number of species which would not be available to fishers.

We believe that we have tried to sustain and secure both the livelihood of fishers and their communities as well as the fishing stock by way of this significant buyback. From here on in, it will be very much a management issue. Australia can hold its head high. There are some species that we are gravely concerned about as having been overfished, but overall Australia has a good record and we intend to maintain it.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I do not want you to particularly refer to the budget papers as closely as I am going to now, but output 7, Scientific advice, on page 53 of the portfolio budget statements has as an objective:

To promote more sustainable, competitive and profitable Australian agricultural, food, fisheries and forestry industries by delivering effective, timely, policy-relevant scientific advice, assessments and tools for decision making.

The question I have relates to climate change. I would like to know what research and modelling has been undertaken by your agency to look at the impact of climate change on the pastoral industry of Northern Australia. Given that forecasters tell us that the north is getting wetter and the south-east and eastern seaboard is getting drier, what research has been undertaken by your agency in relation to this matter and what information can you bring to us? Also, in relation to fisheries, has any research been undertaken or sponsored by your department which would indicate to us how the fisheries might be affected by any climate change modelling?

Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With regard to the agricultural side of the portfolio, I have a climate change action plan which I am funding to the degree of several million dollars. I have asked for projects from researchers and industries and we will be considering them over time. It is much debated. Some people see climate change and agriculture simplistically. The north will get wetter and the further south you come it will get drier and hotter. Farmers are constantly looking at research through their research and development corporations and companies—different varieties, different pastures, different management practices. All that is happening at a grassroots level in preparation for climate change or to survive and manage as best they can through the drought.

At the moment, for most farmers, it has been drought management. Climate change, which may have influenced or even brought about the drought—in the worst case scenario—is allowed for by primary producers but it is really handling the dry conditions. If that becomes a permanent or semi-permanent state, they have had the last few years experience to see them through it.

State governments are doing a lot also. They are probably doing more of the modelling and the scenarios as to what certain regions will look like with this current climatic trend over the next 20 or 30 years. There is a lot of information around. As you know, for Northern Australia Senator Heffernan’s Northern Australia Land and Water Task Force holds great promise for potential expansion of agriculture in the north, and I am sure the member for Lingiari wants to support it.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister tell us the detail of Senator Heffernan’s task force? Who is on it? What industry bodies are represented on it? I raise that because I have had a number of industry sectors approach me and say that they are concerned about the make-up of Senator Heffernan’s task force and that it does not contain a broad cross-section of people with appropriate industry expertise in Northern Australian agriculture or pastoralism.

Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would appreciate it if the member for Lingiari could ensure those inquirers that Senator Heffernan is a great one for consultation and discussion and even negotiation. There is no possibility whatsoever that anybody with a view or an opinion will not have an opportunity to express it and influence the deliberations of that task force. Senator Heffernan approaches his responsibilities with an open mind and will cast the net widely to obtain the best possible advice.

But to finish my previous answer: with regard to climate change modelling, the government has funded CSIRO to the tune of several million dollars to establish a new climate change flagship, so we are heavily dependent on CSIRO. With regard to fisheries, presumably the warming of the water would be the major effect of climate change that would affect the industry or fish stocks. Again, we are dependent on research bodies such as the CSIRO Division of Fisheries or the University of Tasmania, as well as some of the state fishery research institutes.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very genuine about this question. I am not trying to be a smart arse.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member will withdraw that remark.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. I would appreciate it if you could detail who Senator Heffernan has on his task force and what their backgrounds are.

Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot do so off the top of my head. I have seen a list of the people who make up the task force, and I have been mightily impressed by the diversity of their backgrounds and the depth of experience and knowledge they will bring to the task. I certainly know that Senator Ron Boswell is on the task force—and I know the weight he will bring to its deliberations.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could you let us know?

Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Most certainly. It is a matter of public record, I am sure.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will provide that information?

Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If it is a matter of public record, I am happy to provide it. I am sure that I have seen the names—now that I think of it, it might have been a cabinet list!

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point is that it is of great interest and relevance—and not for any political purpose—to people involved in water, in particular in Northern Australia, and for the agriculture sector in particular and for primary industry in general. It is very important that they know who is on the committee, how it will operate and who they can go to for representations—apart from writing a letter to Senator Heffernan. They need to know whether there is a secretariat, who runs it, who controls it and what its guidelines are.

Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your question is noted.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Coming back to the minister’s points about fish stocks: given that the industry have taken the pain of giving up their licences, what is the government going to do about the incursion of illegal fishers into our waters? The industry have taken the pain of giving up their licences and no longer fishing and they are seeing their stock depleted, day in, day out, by the incursions of illegal fishers, particularly from Indonesia, who come into our waters and take our stock. On top of that, there are numerous sightings and reports of these boats landing on the far-flung regions of Australia’s coastline, often bringing livestock with them. There could be birds. Monkeys have been sighted and captured. Avian flu can come in quite easily through that, as well as other fairly devastating diseases that we currently do not have here. So what is the government doing in respect of the illegal fishing industry, which could wipe out our stock more easily than our own fishermen have done?

Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Illegal fishing in our northern waters is a pressing problem and it is a high priority for the government. We tackled this in the 2005 budget with several hundred million dollars for cross-agency cooperation and a joint effort by Customs, the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and AQIS. We work in conjunction with the Western Australian government, the Northern Territory government and especially the Indonesian government. The Indonesians have a terrible illegal fishing problem and they have no tolerance for it. They have suffered enormously from illegal fishers—who are mostly, but not solely, Chinese—and they want to cooperate. We have a number of projects with the Indonesian government to give new industries to a number of these impoverished and far-flung fishing villages. We have some cottage industries starting up and, to the extent that it is possible, there is greater policing by the Indonesian central government. There is no wavering on the part of the Indonesian government.

I think it has borne fruit. We seem to have capped it at least—and I stand to be corrected by my colleague the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, Senator Abetz—and have begun to reduce the number of incursions. A lot of this has been due to the work of the Navy and some sensible measures by us, including that we burn the boats. We have five incinerator sites along the coast now. They can be burnt at sea or there can be multiple towings to a site. It is really quite a logistical or operational problem. By the time you tow them to the designated site, you have taken away the Navy patrol boat for several days. A lot of those sorts of measures are of high deterrent value. As well, there have been some jailings and confiscation of property and the like. So the problem has not gone away. It is not as extensive as it was, say, six to 12 months ago, but it will require continual vigilance.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, one of the things introduced in the budget papers this year concerns investment in hardwood plantations. What will be the impact of investment in the hardwood plantation industry? What will be the impact on exports from hardwood as well as from woodchip? In which direction do you consider our markets will be growing?

Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government has the 2020 vision and target for the plantation industry, especially hardwood plantations—the most popular being blue gums. For that reason, we have a tax arrangement for forestry managed investment schemes, built on the basis that there is no country in the world that has a plantation industry without a subsidy or a grant because of the patient capital needed 10, 15 or more years before harvesting. It is just a fact of life: if you want a plantation industry, you must have a tax incentive. We do it through managed investment schemes and they are not without controversy, as the honourable member would be well aware.

I am often asked by rural communities, even in my own electorate of Gippsland, why the government provides such a tax arrangement for urban investors or retirees who are not farming the land directly. There are a number of reasons. The first is that state governments have progressively locked out the industry from the hardwood resource in native forests. As a result there is a greater scarcity of hardwood than ever before. Also, there are import replacement issues. We run a big enough deficit of $1½ billion or more on imported timber or timber products. In addition to that there are the environmental benefits that go with plantations. There are a great many rural communities who do not see the benefit of plantations.

The Bureau of Rural Science has done a study which shows that the net gain to rural communities in job creation and economic stimulus is greater than any loss of farming land, but that has not convinced many rural communities. It is a sensitive and difficult issue. There are many in the dairy, beef and pastoral industries who believe they cannot compete for land against Great Southern Plantations Ltd or Timber Corporation Ltd and so on. I can tell you that I have faced many angry audiences in rural areas wanting to know why the government has favoured these companies with what they regard as favourable taxation concessions. We believe it is a sound policy, but we have to be mindful of the planning aspects regarding plantations. I think states have a great deal more work to do here. The matter remains under consideration, but the government does differentiate between non-forestry managed investment schemes and forestry managed investment schemes. We do not support non-forestry managed investment schemes in the way we have special arrangements for forestry MISs.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Industry, Tourism and Resources Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $1,301,242,000.

Debate (on motion by Mrs Gash) adjourned.