Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek advice as to where Minister Macfarlane is or where his junior minister, Minister Bailey, is.

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

We have the parliamentary secretary here. Honourable member for Batman, I think you would be well aware of that.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I think it is a fair question. This is a very serious process. It is about accountability. I think they should be front and centre in terms of their ministerial responsibilities.

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

The honourable member for Batman was lucky. He was 30 seconds early.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be raising these issues further because I think accountability is very important—as you yourself know, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, as a former minister of the New South Wales parliament. I would like to go first to the issue of ethanol—something dear to the hearts of some members of this parliament because they are very close to companies such as Manildra. I would like the parliamentary secretary to advise on the following matters. Given the growing food versus fuel debate, what is the government doing to promote the development of lignocellulosic ethanol production in Australia? What progress has been made on meeting ethanol and biodiesel targets? Are there any problems with meeting supply, given the drought? Can the parliamentary secretary also advise whether the department has done any work on whether or not the potential mandating of ethanol by some state governments could at one point in the future lead to an increase in the price of petrol in Australia?

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Batman for his question. We have actually spent $50,278,000, projected for 2006-07, and the budget estimate for the year after that is $63.4 million. The honourable member raises the question about setting mandated targets. The federal government have stated over and over that we do not see that as a position for this government. It should be done by consumer choice driving demand. We do support the development of an ethanol industry, but it is something that should not be forced upon the consumer. If state governments want to regulate in such a way, that is a matter for them.

The federal government is providing financial support, but it is also up to those who are producing the ethanol to explain to motorists, to consumers, the exact benefits, whether they are environmental or economic, to make sure that it is a viable proposition. That is our position on it. It has been well stated in the parliament by the minister. We encourage the industry to grow and develop. I know that my colleague here, the member for Gilmore, has a huge plant, the Manildra plant, in her electorate and has been a very strong advocate for ethanol. Whilst I am sure she would like to see mandated levels, she understands that people should choose this rather than have it forced upon them.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek to remind the parliamentary secretary that the question went to: what is the government doing with respect to the potential development of lignocellulosic ethanol in Australia? What has been done to meet its targets with respect to ethanol to date? Are there any potential problems emerging with the drought and what is now an international debate on food versus fuel? Has the government done any work on the potential impact of mandating fuel prices in Australia because of an almost monopoly producer in Australia?

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

The honourable member understands that a question has to be succinct. That was more a speech than a question. Does the parliamentary secretary wish to reply?

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised by our department that our Biofuels Capital Grants program, which commenced in 2003-04, with some $24.3 million of investment, has continued to grow. This year there is $20,225,000 to be taken up as part of that. As for other particulars, I can understand where the member is going in trying to get the government to commit to mandated levels, but we will not commit to mandated levels—

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You did raise—unless I did not hear you correctly—the subject of the government setting mandated levels.

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

Could we get to the facts of the budget, instead of having a debate between the parliamentary secretary and the member for Batman. If the member for Batman could identify sections of the budget that he wants questions answered on, then we might be able to facilitate that.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously the advisers have brought to the attention of the parliamentary secretary the issues that I have raised. The information is clearly not available. I ask that the questions be taken on board with a view to giving me the answers. I now go to the question of gas—LNG and GTL, gas to liquids. LNG demand is growing worldwide but it seems that LNG projects in Australia are still struggling to get off the ground—for example, the Gorgon project has been endeavouring to get going for six years. What is holding it up, and what other projects are planned or underway?

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I last year had the opportunity to visit the Woodside onshore processing facility out near Dampier. This is a huge investment. Unfortunately for the member for Batman, infrastructure cannot be built as quickly as he would perhaps like. But let us remember that it was this government that put together the $25 billion deal with China. It was this government that participated in the onshore delivery facility in China. And this government is looking at markets. Every week there are people coming to this country looking for more and more supplies of gas from Australia. But infrastructure development is also at times held up through environmental issues that need to be dealt with, and again I point to the Woodside facility, which has some issues to deal with—Aboriginal stone artefacts and paintings. That is but one. All of the other fields and platforms are taking time in process. If we look at the Timor facility, that is taking a long time just in the negotiation of treaty to establish a commencement date. In fact, I had the pleasure of, on behalf of the minister, putting the bill before this House on the financial split under the Sunrise treaty and the cooperation that will go beyond.

I agree with the member for Batman: there is huge demand for our gas in this country, but part and parcel of that is getting the infrastructure developed to access it. I also point out to the member for Batman that this country, through Geoscience Australia, has invested a massive amount of money in exploration—by seismic and other methods—to understand where these pockets are. In addition to that, the government is committed to facilitating, through free trade agreements, even greater access to overseas markets for our product. We will continue with that. In relation to the questions that the member for Batman asked prior to that, we will take those on board and we will respond. I could not quite hear what he was saying, and I apologise for that—that is my hearing going—but I thought that he was asking about mandated levels of blended fuels. As I said, the government’s position on that is well known: we are not going to set a target, but we will encourage industry to develop and be competitive in the marketplace.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the parliamentary secretary’s comments on ethanol. I clearly do not support mandating. The issues I raise are serious issues, going to what is a very complex debate now about where we go on ethanol and whether or not what is occurring in some states is potentially going to have an impact on the price of petrol generally because of an almost monopolistic position of Manildra with respect to ethanol production in the future, and consumers possibly being the losers. But that is an issue to be followed up by the department, because I think Australian consumers want an answer to that question of whether or not there are alternatives to the Manildra type of production, such as lignocellulosic ethanol production. Continuing with respect to the fuel debate: what is the status of the titles over the Gorgon and Greater Gorgon gas fields, and are they held in production licences or retention leases?

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not wanting to mislead the honourable member, we will take that on notice and provide him with an exact answer into the staged rollout of leases and the take-up of those leases.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Further, when the government considers retention lease renewal, will it take into account the concerns of domestic gas customers about the willingness of gas sellers to develop fields for the domestic gas market? Secondly, is the government aware that, despite the fact that there are generous tax incentives, the industry is calling for further tax incentives? What is the government’s view about those demands from industry, given the fact that they are already sitting on considerable reserves which they have failed to develop? Will the government also consider a policy option of ‘use it or lose it’, effectively forcing the industry to develop the reserves that they are currently sitting on?

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his question. As I am advised, and I am sure that the member would be aware, the gas pockets that are contained on the mainland of Australia actually come under the purview of the state governments for administration. The federal government, through the offshore gas and oil industry, has control of those pockets. We have been spending a considerable amount of money on research, through Geoscience Australia, to identify those pockets. We have been able to roll out leases for people to take up in relation to those. When we look at the investment and development of things such as the Woodside project and the North West Shelf, if we look at the money that is being tipped into the Sunrise project and if we look at research into offshore areas and whether the Bremer Basin contains gas, we will see that these are all things in the future. But I can understand the member’s concern about ensuring domestic supply of gas in Australia.

I am also advised that there is more than ample gas available for domestic supply in Australia, and part of the proof of that is the fact that the government rolled out a massive subsidy in the middle of the fuel crisis to get cars converted to LPG. The take-up of that has been quite phenomenal. Every time the price goes up, the applications to gain access to an LPG vehicle conversion or the $1,000 subsidy for a new vehicle seems to go up. That being said, the delay in that process is, of course, in part due to the delay in accessing installation. Security of supply is critical and we accept that. That is why we take a broad approach to the total amount of availability of gas, oil and, indeed, coal in Australia and how we measure that out.

Also, there are people such as those in AGL who have been involved in looking at establishing the pipeline from PNG oilfields to Australia. People are looking at investing in and developing opportunities there. Of course, for security of supply in my own area in the Hunter, there is a lack of gas availability for domestic and some industrial consumers in the Hunter Valley. Through state governments opening up monopolistic attitudes, there are private investors looking at establishing gas supply lines for domestic consumption. I can assure the member that there will be, in the foreseeable future—no doubt in my lifetime or, indeed, our children’s lifetimes or our grandchildren’s lifetimes, and a few beyond that—no shortage in the supply of gas reserves in Australia.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Further to the issue of the resource sector and opening up development, I go to the iron ore sector—an area of substantial investment by companies such as Rio Tinto, BHP, Fortescue et cetera. There is currently a problem with respect to railway access in the Pilbara. What is the government doing to resolve the question of the iron ore supply chains in the Pilbara? What is the government doing to implement the recommendations of its own Export Infrastructure Task Force to introduce ‘an efficiency override’ for applications for the declaration of export related facilities under part IIIA or its associated regimes, or are we just going to continue to go through the courts rather than resolve these problems with government policy decisions?

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I respectfully advise the honourable member that the matter is before the ACCC at the moment and we will await the outcome of an ACCC investigation into the matter.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does that effectively mean that the government is ruling out a potential amendment to part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act, as recommended by its own task force, which enables this issue to be fixed once and for all? The iron ore industry is a major part of our export infrastructure and a huge export earner for Australia.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no doubt that iron ore is a huge export earner for Australia. By the same token, there is no denying that the ACCC was set up to be a first port of call to look at issues pertaining to the Trade Practices Act and competition. If the ACCC finds that it cannot reach a clearly identifiable solution to the problem, it is then for the ACCC to make recommendations to the government should there need to be changes. But I think what we will do in this situation is allow the authority that we invested to look at this situation and provide a response to government so that the government can then take further action.

This government does not shoot from the hip when it comes to providing solutions. We establish legal frameworks so that people have security in making investments, knowing that there are set pieces of legislation that governments will adhere to. If we were to keep jumping and hopping around and there was no security through legislation, what impact does the member for Batman think that would have on investment in Australia?

I accept that iron ore is a big earner for Australia. There is an opportunity to increase our exports from this nation. But we will not be the government that shoots from the hip and makes ad hoc decisions without reviewing them through the processes that have been used by governments since time immemorial in this place to review things with adequacy and impartiality.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Isn’t it true that the resources sector itself has asked for this efficiency override because of a lack of certainty on investment in the iron ore industry which is now holding back potential investment, effectively meaning that other countries are now getting investment in the iron ore industry to the detriment of Australia, and that a potential amendment of part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act is just not about the iron ore and resources sector; it also includes, for example, the electricity generation sector? Given that the government’s own task force said such an efficiency override ‘would minimise the risk that access regimes would disrupt the very areas of the economy that have performed best in the management of export related infrastructure,’ is the government ruling out an amendment to part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act to fix this issue once and for all so as to secure investment in Australia in not just the resources sector but also a range of other industries such as electricity generation?

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again I say to the honourable member that the government is not ruling anything in or out. The matter is under consideration by the minister. But, first and foremost, we need to allow the ACCC to do its job impartially. There is no point in having an ACCC if indeed the government just leans on it every five minutes to change the direction of legislation in Australia. That will have massive effects on the investment confidence of people in Australia. The member talks about investment in infrastructure. I do not have the figures on what royalties are paid to the government of Western Australia in relation to iron ore, but I am sure that some of those royalties could be invested in providing infrastructure.

Last night in the House the member for Batman talked in, I must say, a very well-informed way about the coal industry, but the key point that the member for Batman did not raise in that debate was the amount of money secured by royalties. In  2005-06, New South Wales achieved some $447 million in coal royalties and, in that same period of time, Queensland achieved $1.15 billion. How much do the federal government achieve in royalties out of iron ore? The answer: nothing. How much do the federal government achieve in coal royalties? The answer: nothing. When it comes to infrastructure investment, we do not deny that we make our money through having an improved bottom line as a trading figure and through income taxes collected on the way. Those businesses have no GST liability, but what they do collect is paid back to the state government. It is important that the states recognise—as the member for Batman said last night—that there is a need, in partnership with federal, state and of course local government, to find ways of achieving solutions. We need to see some of the royalties that are achieved invested back into infrastructure, which would go part of the way towards solving some of these problems. I do understand that the issue in relation to the single rail line owned by one proprietor—

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No—who owns the railway line at the moment.

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

Can we have an organised question and answer here? The parliamentary secretary has the call.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is nothing to stop companies that wish to open up new greenfield sites or iron ore sites providing their own infrastructure, as companies before them have done. And I am talking not only about up in the Pilbara but also about other areas. Companies do invest in their own infrastructure to gain access to markets. As I said, we will adhere to the process laid down by this government to provide security of investment through protection by legislation and allow the ACCC to do their job. When we have received their outcome, we will have a look at the measures to be put in place.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I go to the next issue, I will just say that it is not about government investment; it is about a secure investment regime for the private sector. They want to invest more of their shareholders’ money in Australia, but they want an investment regime which guarantees security of investment. The simple prospect is: please amend part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act and create that investment security. Let the private sector do what it is good at.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Talk about one delivered on a platter! The member opposite, the member for Batman, has just said that their shareholders want to invest money in Australia—we love that; we do everything we can to encourage that—but they want to know that their investment is secure. So I would again put the statement to the chamber that the government cannot just change legislation, ad hoc, to suit individual cases without going through a proper process. I acknowledge that the task force has reported back to the government, but surely the member opposite can understand that the appropriate place to review the question of competition is the ACCC, because that is the reason that they were established in the first place. I do not have the authority or the detail to speak on the ACCC’s behalf—that comes under another portfolio—but I do know that it is pointless to set up independent bodies that are able to examine these issues in detail and then not let them do their job. We need to let them do their job and then take on board their outcomes.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unfortunately there is a lack of understanding. This is a major legal issue at the moment, and companies have made requests to government to legislate and fix it. But I will move on. Where is the government’s current consideration of a flowthrough shares proposal for the mining industry so as to encourage investment, especially amongst small- and medium-sized miners?

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is like deja vu. I thought that was exactly the same question you asked last year, Member for Batman. Our position has not changed. Of course one must work within one’s budget and always attempt to finish the day, like business, with more money in one’s pocket than what one spends. We have been able to do that—unlike most state governments, four of which are continuing their process in debt, not profit. The government do not see that it is economically viable for our nation to provide flowthrough share schemes at the moment. That does not mean that in the long-term they are out. These things are discussed during each and every budget review process, but it is not in the budget this year.

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources in relation to the appropriations bills. I would be interested to know as the federal member for Ryan, representing the wonderful western suburbs of Brisbane, the implications of the appropriation bill in terms of Australian tourism, given that the Ryan electorate that I represent relies very significantly on it in terms of employment. Thousands of residents in the electorate of Ryan are employed in tourism, and I have in the Ryan electorate the lowest unemployment rate of all of the federal electorates, at 1.8 per cent. I would be keen to know from the parliamentary secretary the significance of the budget bill and the benefits and the significance for Australian tourism nationally as well as for Australians across the country and, of course, for the Ryan electorate in particular.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Ryan for his question and I congratulate him on the hard work that he does as a member of parliament in bringing the tourism industry and other industries together as a cohesive force so as to have a low unemployment rate. That is well done, and it comes about through the ability to bring people together and give them an opportunity to have a job. It has been well heralded in this place. Our industrial relations reforms have contributed massively to the reduction in unemployment. I point out to the member that the amount of money that is being spent on tourism funding—$193 million—is directly on the back of the money that has been expended and will continue to be expended for this coming financial year from the tourism white paper. Ministers Hockey and Bailey are adamant about providing long-term support for our tourism industry, putting our best foot forward, approaching markets in new ways and refreshing ideas to get more people to come to Australia.

Of course, our ‘So where the bloody hell are you?’ campaign has been a great success in markets. But some expect that you advertise today and the benefit is there directly tomorrow; some ill-informed people think that you run your ad in England today and tomorrow people are booking. The flowthrough effect of these ads is in the long term. But one thing that is interesting is that, in tourism expenditure, the Queensland state government have barely kept pace with inflation. So, in real terms, in the last seven years we have seen an increase from the Queensland state government of only some $7 million—and they call themselves the tourism state! We say that they should be expanding their investment in tourism, as indeed should all states.

I will give you an example of a state that has. Western Australia has taken its investment in tourism from $31 million in 2000 to $52.8 million in the coming financial year. The Northern Territory is also doing a tremendous job. For a territory with a population of just over 150,000 people, its spending has gone from $26.7 million in the year 2000 to $38.3 million now: an increase of nearly 30 per cent. So they understand that tourism brings dollars to town. Queensland does well from tourism by sheer virtue of the natural asset it has there in the Barrier Reef, but more could be done. Through this government, we developed the ‘So where the bloody hell are you?’ campaign. The question that I ask members to consider is: can you imagine what the slogan would be if Dean Mighell, the head of the ETU, was put in charge of Tourism Australia? I will leave you to ponder that.

We have also seen an increase in investment in the Australian Tourism Development Grant Program. Some of the areas of outback Queensland are also affected by drought and we have seen an increased investment in drought tourism packages. These are there for people to apply for and take advantage of to increase their tourism opportunity. The one thing that we know as we move around to talk to various groups in the tourism industry is that if you do not keep refreshing your ideas, your attitudes and your approach then your market share will diminish. That is why we had to take a very bold and brazen step and put a wake-up call out there internationally by developing the ‘So where the bloody hell are you?’ campaign. I believe, as do many people in the tourism industry—who are providing their own support and investment funding through their own advertising on the back of the Brand Australia advertising—that this program will deliver in bounds. The ‘Throw another shrimp on the barbie’ campaign was outstandingly successful. I believe that this program will take tourism awareness internationally for Brand Australia to the same heights.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question goes to tourism shopping. When will the current consultation on the review with the state and territory governments conclude? To date, which states and territories have provided a response on the consultation process? What has been the response from each state and territory government that has responded to the consultation process?

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to the honourable member’s question, I am advised that the consultation period is still underway. All of the submissions have not been received yet. When all of that is concluded, the government will deliver an appropriate response. We undertake to take the question on notice and provide the information when it is available.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With regard to the involvement of the Minister for Small Business and Tourism in the G’day USA Australia Week 2007 promotion, what was the minister’s total expenditure on the trip on airfares, travel advances, accommodation, ground transport, entertainment and incidentals? Did any of her staff accompany her on the trip? If so, how many staff attended and what was the total expenditure for staff participation in the trip on airfares, travel advances, accommodation, ground transport, entertainment and incidentals? What was Tourism Australia’s budget resource allocation for the program for the years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08? What proportion of the program’s cost was recouped through cost recovery measures, including sponsorship deals for the G’day USA Australia Week promotion? Lastly, is what the industry telling me true—namely, that the minister complained about the quality of her accommodation in LA? Is there any truth to the rumour that an average of over $1,000 per day was spent by the minister on ground transport during her trip?

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

From the very start, let me say to the member that I deal in fact, not inference, rumour and innuendo. The majority of the questions the honourable member just asked were answered in the estimates. If the member looks at the statements in estimates and finds that his questions are not appropriately answered then we will take a further question on notice on that.

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the federal member for Ryan, representing the wonderful western suburbs of Brisbane, and being a very keen supporter of tourism, I inform the House that thousands of Ryan residents and constituents rely on the tourism industry for jobs directly and indirectly. As such, I would be very keen on the parliamentary secretary’s response to this question. It is around the tourism industry’s response to the budget’s allocation for tourism promotion. Can the parliamentary secretary also inform me and the House whether other stakeholders or interested parties may have commented on the appropriation bill’s specific allocation of dollars to the promotion of the tourism industry? I would be keen to hear, as I am sure the residents of Ryan who depend on the tourism industry’s integrity and the tourism industry’s continuing success would be keen to hear, what the tourism industry’s representatives and other stakeholders or interested parties might have commented given this is such a profound and significant industry for the continuing prosperity of our country and the economic security of individuals and their families.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Ryan for his question in relation to investment in tourism. On the figures that are provided to me, I would say to the honourable member that the Australian Tourism Development Program—four years at a cost of $24.9 million—will be providing an additional $10 million over the next two years as part of government investment. That of course is for drought affected areas. I acknowledge that the member does not exactly have a drought affected area, but I know that the member is on very high level water restrictions in his region.

Looking at where we go with the investment in tourism, there is no doubt that the response from the tourism industry to the white paper and that investment was outstanding. The response by the industry relief was one of relief to see that we were continuing that investment with some $193 million to continue the great work of Tourism Australia, which will provide benefits to all areas of Australian tourism. Some of the new and emerging markets that we are approaching and the opportunities that lie ahead—not just our traditional markets of New Zealand, Great Britain, Europe and the US but the newer and evolving markets in areas like China and other areas through Asia and particularly the work that is being done in India at the moment—these will provide great economic benefit. At times the average punter in Australia would look at India and China as being relatively poor markets. Yet the level of middle class with high levels of disposable income in those two countries equates to more than the market approach that we would be able to deliver out of Europe or the USA, so I encourage the development there.

I know that the member for Ryan has been doing a lot of work, particularly in liaising with the Chinese market and bringing business tourism to Australia and trying to encourage investment into his area and his region, and for that work he is to be congratulated. He goes out on the front foot looking for opportunities for his region, unlike many other people who would just sit and wait and ask, ‘What about me?’ Here is a fine member of parliament who goes out on the front foot and looks for opportunities in his electorate. For that he is to be congratulated and he is a good member of parliament.

When we look at further investment, there are many opportunities that people can tap into to develop tourism projects in Australia—not just the Australian Tourism Development Program; there are other areas and aspects in relation to outlying areas in regional Australia where people can apply for regional and rural partnerships to develop tourism opportunities. So again I congratulate the member on the fine work that he does in his electorate and on behalf of his region in driving forward tourism growth and opportunities and I hope he continues his work in the future.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I simply note that the parliamentary secretary watches the clock closely, but as a teacher used to say to me, ‘Time will pass, but will you?’ I have a question to the minister relating to the Minister for Small Business and Tourism. Does the minister now accept the government’s outcome with respect to the review of open skies that our priority on the Pacific route is Qantas and Virgin Blue or will the minister continue to argue for overseas airlines undermining Qantas and Virgin Blue? Can the parliamentary secretary also advise me with respect to the decline in the Japanese market, which fell 9.2 per cent over the last six months, and how quickly the government considers that a Japanese soap opera will turn this Japanese decline around? Will the minister for tourism and small business audition for the soap opera? Secondly, given the importance of tourism to the Gold Coast and the partnership agreement between the Australian and Queensland governments for the Tugun Bypass, does the minister accept that the M1 must continue to be upgraded and widened in a partnership agreement between the Australian government and the Queensland government; and when will the Australian government—if that is the case—put money on the table to enable the work to continue on the Gold Coast?

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am afraid some aspects of the question the member has asked are outside the portfolio responsibility. But, in relation to open skies, that question would be better addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, who at the end of the day has the ruling on that. But let me say this: we encourage people coming to Australia. When we look at Tiger or Asian airways that are looking at our facilities—in particular, they are looking at providing their hubbing out of regional areas—it is to be encouraged.

The member has also asked questions in relation to road funding, which would probably be better addressed by someone else. But can I say that the federal government’s investment at $23.2 billion under an AusLink 2 project has had massive effects on the tourism industry.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you have asked the question and now you are going to get the answer. If I look at where tourism has grown and developed, it has been where money has been spent on roads to provide safe access to those regions. It is a pity that your mates in the state government of New South Wales cannot wake up to that, because they seem to be spending all of their money in the heart of Sydney but very little in regional and rural areas. The member for Batman has heard me say before in my own electorate that the Bucketts Way, which has had $20 million of federal government money spent on it, has improved tourism. How much did we get out of the state government? Let me tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the amount given by the state government was absolutely zero. So there was no money for tourism infrastructure, as the member has just alluded to, in the way of roads, but this government is committed not just with the money it has already spent with AusLink, not just with the money it has already spent under Roads to Recovery with council, not just the money it has spent on black spot road funding but to the $23.2 billion that we are going to spend on AusLink 2 to make sure that we have safer roads. Safer roads increase tourism opportunities. It is a pity state governments do not wake up to that.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Japanese soap opera.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, the Japanese soap opera.

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

Order! The parliamentary secretary will resume his seat and the member for Batman will remain silent.

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question to the parliamentary secretary is in relation to the very important body Tourism Australia, which exists to promote Australian tourism. In particular, I would be keen to hear from the parliamentary secretary about the Tourism Australia structure. Given that the chairman, the Hon. Tim Fischer, former Deputy Prime Minister in the parliament, is stepping down, I just wonder whether the parliamentary secretary might be able to comment on this important body, funding for it and the sorts of ideas it might have to promote tourism in Australia but in particular in Queensland, the state that I come from, and of course in Brisbane. The significance of Tourism Australia, as the parliamentary secretary has already touched on, is to steer significant projects that promote Australia internationally. Given this is a very important body in the architecture of Australia’s tourism industry, I would be very keen to hear from the parliamentary secretary about Tourism Australia’s structure and perhaps the future chairman. If he is able to elaborate on that, I would be most grateful.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again I thank the member for Ryan—

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I bet you do; I bet you do!

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

Order!

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Ryan, Mr Deputy Speaker, has hit on one key and critical point, and that is the work of Tim Fischer as the Chairman of Tourism Australia. Not only was this man an outstanding member of parliament and Deputy Prime Minister but he also brought value to the board of Tourism Australia by sheer virtue of the fact that he had been a trade minister. He had overseas contacts, he had overseas understanding and he knew markets; and he brought that to the board of Tourism Australia. It will be sad to see Tim go, because of the contribution that he has made, but we all get a little bit older and we also have a lot of demands on our time in other areas. In relation to the new CEO, Geoff Buckley, I think he is doing a tremendous job, as Scott Morrison did a tremendous job before him. Things progress and move on, but can I say Geoff Buckley is doing a tremendous job.

These programs that we are developing and rolling out across various countries will take time to pick up. As I said at the very beginning, unless you keep refreshing your ideas and your attitudes, unless you go out of your way to build new relationships with travel agents, with opinion makers in those countries who influence the local media, if you sit back and do what you have always done then you are going to achieve nothing better. You cannot ride on the past; you have to drive into the future. I think our new tourism markets that we are developing—as I said, particularly exciting will be those in China and India—will provide great benefits to Australia. The member for Batman talked about the drop-off in the Japanese market and then straightaway started to condemn the approaches we take to try to refresh our ideas and access to the Japanese market.

Towns like Cairns that are icons of the Great Barrier Reef and access points need to freshen up their ideas, their approach and their towns to create a new reason for tourists to get there. Tourism attitudes over the last 10 to 20 years have changed. They are no longer purely repetitive markets. This may be a one-time destination for people who come here and they may go to a different destination next time they take a holiday. I will give you an example of that.

The superyacht industry in Australia is a growing and emerging industry. Its total worth to Australia is around $850 million. A few of the key ports that they like to visit are the Gold Coast, Cairns and Sydney. The investment in infrastructure in those ports has provided opportunities for high-spend, high-yield markets to come to Australia. There are problems that evolve that we will need to deal with in relation to visas and those aspects—but it is a new approach. Why are they coming to Australia? These are boats that would traditionally tour the Gulf of Mexico or the Mediterranean, but new people, with new wealth and new opportunities, are not repetitive travellers. They will not go and spend every holiday on the Mediterranean on their boat. They will not go to the Caribbean every holiday. They are looking for a new adventure, a new place to fill, and Australia is very well placed to take up those opportunities.

I have had the pleasure of working with the superyacht industry through the Marine Industry Action Agenda and I know what is on the drawing board, the future plans and future opportunities that it will bring. Not only do they come here for their vacation or holiday; it also gives them an insight into Australia which can develop into an investment program perhaps for growing and emerging business benefits that they might want to achieve. I think that the next five to 10 years in tourism in Australia will grow in leaps and bounds in numbers, in yield and, the bottom line, in jobs, particularly in the southern Queensland region, and there will be employment growth through that facility.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, there are questions outstanding from estimates which we would like answered. I also accept that Tim Fischer has done a good job. Can the parliamentary secretary therefore explain to the House whether or not the minister has taken on board concerns expressed by the Chairman of Tourism Australia and the council about the minister micromanaging Tourism Australia, about the fact that Tourism Australia cannot issue a media release without the minister’s office’s approval? Can he also explain why Scott Morrison, who the parliamentary secretary conceded was doing a good job, was sacked by the minister? Was it because he was getting a higher media profile than the minister herself?

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the moments that are left before the expiration of time, can I simply say that we all agree that Tim Fischer did a tremendous job and he is a well regarded Australian. He is highly thought of. The process of managing departments, even statutory authorities, is often difficult. It is a new department that has taken new directions. I am sure that the direction and the implementation of ideas from not only the overall Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources but also Tourism Australia and the ministers’ offices is what is delivering the outcomes we require from Tourism Australia and in particular our broader tourism market.

We will stand our ground on where we are going with Tourism Australia, on the market penetrations we will achieve with this new, adventurous marketing campaign. I think the minister is doing an outstanding job. It is never easy going out and fighting for new market share when you have people who do nothing but criticise Australia. We only need to look at Sharan Burrow’s expose in the international market, putting down Australia, reflecting on Australia. What effect does the member think that will have on international tourism coming to Australia?

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of the Environment and Water Resources

Proposed expenditure, $2,025,757,000.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to present the 2007-08 Environment and Water Resources portfolio appropriations to the Main Committee of the House of Representatives. The budget delivers historic levels of funding to address the key environmental issues confronting us today—water scarcity, climate change and sustainable land management. In this year, 2007-08, the Australian government’s environment related spending will increase to a record $4.3 billion. In the course of its life, the government has spent more than $20 billion on environmental conservation and protection.

There is no greater threat today to the long-term economic and environmental welfare of this nation than climate change and water scarcity. As the Prime Minister recently announced, Australia will move to develop what will be the world’s best domestic emissions-trading system by 2012. This will be the most comprehensive emissions-trading scheme in the world, covering the sources of 75 per cent of all emissions.

Our total commitment to fighting climate change now stands at $2.8 billion. Climate change is a global problem. Global warming is a global problem and it needs a global response. To be environmentally effective, we have to work collaboratively with the world’s largest emitters. We have to work collectively to make the dramatic cuts to greenhouse gas emissions that science tells us we need by the middle of this century. Just to put a frame of reference around the scale of cuts that we need that is comprehensible: in order to achieve the cuts in emissions that science tells us the world needs by mid-century, we will need to have by the middle of this century almost all of our stationary energy and most of our transport energy coming from zero or near zero emission sources. That is an incredible technological transformation that we have to reckon with and deal with. That is the scale of the technological challenge which we are speaking of. There are people who like to suggest that the response to climate change, the response to global warming, will be easy, will be cheap and will not be much of a problem. It is a massive change. It is a technological change on a par with the industrial revolution itself.

So we are working very hard with the major emitters—in particular China and the United States—to develop the confidence and the collaboration necessary for this effective global response. At the same time, we are focused on early action. There are two areas of early action that are most promising and most achievable. The first is forestry, where we are literally leading the world in a new Global Initiative on Forests and Climate, investing $200 million over five years to stop deforestation in developing countries and promote reforestation and sustainable forestry management. Of course, that $200 million is not sufficient to undertake this massive task alone, but it is designed to motivate and galvanise other countries to partner with us in this enormous effort. If we could simply halve the rate of deforestation, we would reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by 10 per cent, which is more than 10 times the effect of Kyoto.

Turning from climate change to water: no Australian government has ever committed as much in resources to water as the Howard government has, through the $2 billion Australian Government Water Fund, the National Water Initiative—that groundbreaking intergovernmental agreement—and, most recently, the $10 billion National Plan for Water Security, tackling the problems of overallocation and inefficient use of water in the agricultural areas of Australia, where 70 per cent of our water is used. So these are massive contributions to these key challenges of climate change and water scarcity.

Finally—and I will deal with the rest of this in questions, no doubt—we are again leading the world, not alone but in partnership with other countries, in dealing with the key technological challenges. The most important technology to master is going to be clean coal. Australia, the US and the Netherlands are leading the world. That is the measure of our commitment to a cooler planet.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first issue I wish to raise is the Living Murray water tender. Minister, given that in 2006 the government allocated $200 million to recover 200 gigalitres of water entitlements for the Murray through a tender for water efficiency, which closed on 14 February 2007, can you confirm that only $765,000 was actually spent on purchasing water entitlements through this tender? Can you confirm that only three tenders were accepted, recovering only 454 megalitres of water entitlements—0.2 per cent of the volume that the government aimed to recover? What is happening to the excess funding, the $199 million that remains of the $200 million that you anticipated would be spent on this tender? How can you explain the absolute failure of this tender process, where almost no water has been recovered under the tender?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member knows that he is misrepresenting the situation, and it is disappointing that he would be so disingenuous. There was never an allocation of $200 million to the tender. In fact, when the tender was announced, I was very cautious about whether we would buy any water at all. The only reference to the figure 200 was that we said we would certainly not buy more than 200 gigalitres, because that was on the high side of the forecast shortfall of the 500-gigalitre target for the Living Murray Initiative. The tender was always stated to be experimental—and you can dig up my press releases and statements of the time—and we specifically did not set a target. I said many times that I did not know whether we would be buying a little water, a lot of water or no water at all. It was an experimental effort and, as much as anything else, was designed for us to understand a bit about the market and the preparedness of people to tender water in circumstances where they had to derive that water from efficiency measures. So the fundamental premise of the member for Grayndler’s question is completely wrong. He is misstating the facts.

Turning to the tender itself, with the way the Commonwealth procurement rules work, the maximum price that can be paid has to be set before the tenders come in. So it is not like a typical book-build where you are buying shares for a company or some sort of financial transaction. It has some unusual characteristics. The price was set at a level, based on advice, which was above but not significantly above market price. From the time that price was set in a process that was very much at arms-length from the government, obviously for probity reasons and so forth, a number of things happened: firstly, the drought drove water prices up, so water became much more valuable; and, secondly—and this really is what had the biggest impact on the tender—the Prime Minister announced the National Plan for Water Security about 10 days, as I recall, before the due date for the close of the tender.

The National Plan for Water Security overwhelmed this tender because the National Plan for Water Security involves irrigators being subsidised into saving water through efficiency measures, with the Commonwealth paying the bulk of the cost and the water savings being shared, whereas, under the tender, the irrigator would have to spend all the money—100 per cent of the money—on saving water and then sell that water, the product of his savings, to the Commonwealth. So, many irrigators would have looked at the National Plan for Water Security and said that that is a much better deal and accordingly been prepared only to tender for the water through efficiencies tender at a much higher price. So the fact that there were a small number of bids that came in under the threshold price was no surprise to us at all. It was entirely expected. In fact, in some respects, given the National Plan for Water Security and the fact that it presented to many people a significantly better deal, it was surprising that we had any offers at all.

As far as purchasing more water is concerned, the honourable member will be interested to learn that at the recent Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council meeting there was a resolution to buy a further 20 gigalitres of water on market by the commission which of course will be using Commonwealth government funds as part of the $500 million we contributed last year. They will be on-market purchases without any strings attached, not related to efficiency measures, and will be done through brokers. That will happen in the latter part of this year. So the purchase of water is certainly happening. The MDBC will be in the market. Indeed, water purchases are part of the National Plan for Water Security.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I go to the national water plan. The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources will recall the Prime Minister’s speech on 25 January which warned about the danger of not taking decisive action on the water crisis. The appropriations being debated in the parliament today indicate that just $53 million will be spent in the coming financial year, 2007-08, and, of that, just $15 million will be spent on addressing overallocation. Why, if it is such a priority for the government, is the $10 billion announcement back-ended in terms of funding? If this were a priority, wouldn’t you expect it to be front-end loaded in terms of the spending?

Why is it that the government has refused to release documents that have been requested under freedom of information legislation by Channel 7 and the West Australian relating to the preparation of the 25 January announcement? Is it the case that the government has used the excuse of concern about the states? Given that it is a fact that the states were not consulted prior to the 25 January announcement, the release of these documents, which the state leaders have indicated they would approve being released, could not possibly cause damage to federal-state relations. Finally, can the minister confirm that the very brief costings table that was published when the Prime Minister addressed the National Press Club on 25 January was one of the documents to which access was refused under the FOI request?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps the honourable member could remind me of the first question he asked. What was the first point?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Albanese interjecting

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you—then you ventured into freedom of information. The scheduling of the spending is something that has been put together by the finance department. It takes a fairly conservative view about timing. But I have to say that, based on my now nearly 18 months experience in dealing with water projects, they all take a very long time for the money to be spent. If you think about this program, the bulk of the money is going to water efficiency and irrigation efficiency upgrades. We will be spending money on piping, lining channels, reconfiguring irrigation systems and so forth.

The timetabling of that, inevitably, is going to mean that we will see some projects. Let us say we agree to fund some of those in the course of this year. I would certainly hope that we would be able to do that. Obviously, it is very much dependent on reaching a final agreement with the states on the plan. But, assuming that we can do that, I could see some projects being approved this year and some money being spent. But I have to say, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, as I am sure you know from your experience in rural Australia, the big dollars will be spent some time down the track because invariably with these water projects there is a lot of planning required and the scheduling of the construction and so forth takes time.

This timetabling is fairly conservative. That is certainly my feeling. We will meet demand. If the projects are there and the money can be spent sooner, then we will do so. We are committed to getting on with the job. This is only an estimate.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is an overspend?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, this is an estimate. As you know, in any set of forward estimates there are some unders and overs throughout. But we are not limiting ourselves to those items. I have to say—and you see this with the Australian Government Water Fund projects—that there are projects for which we committed the money several years ago now where the full funds have not been drawn down. That is not due to any lack of preparedness to write the cheque; it is simply that the project has not advanced. These big water projects are long and laborious and they invariably take time. That is why, inevitably in a program of this kind, the expenditure will ramp up from low levels in the earlier years to higher levels in the later years.

In terms of the freedom of information request, that has been answered comprehensively elsewhere. The decision was taken, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, by a senior official in the department. It was not a political decision. The answers to the honourable member’s questions are set out in the response from the department.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will begin by putting on the record that, relating to my first series of questions regarding the tender, on 22 May 2006 Minister McGauran stated:

The government will also allow up to $200 million of its contribution to the purchasing of water from on-farm efficiency savings by way of a tender system that the parliamentary secretary—

that is, Mr Turnbull—

is working up now.

Secondly, your statement on 19 June 2006 was that the government ‘would not be seeking to acquire more than 200 gigalitres’. I just point out to the minister that that is where the figures came from—from him and Minister McGauran.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is exactly what I said.

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

The minister does not have the call. The member for Grayndler has the call.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. He is new to this; we will give him the benefit of the doubt there. I also indicate that I found your last answer quite extraordinary. I am not sure whether you were justifying the fact that just half of one per cent of $10 billion will be spent in the coming financial year or whether you were suggesting that the $53 million was just a sort of vague figure, that you might spend more or less in terms of the appropriation that is there, so I would appreciate clarification of that.

I want to go to the two specific issues of the Clarence dam proposal and the government’s proposition there. Can the minister confirm that the report by the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation states on page 6 that there were ‘no detailed site investigations’ and on page 68 that the report was:

… based on a number of sweeping assumptions due to the restricted time frame, the nature of the study and the lack of access to recent financial data.

Minister, why weren’t there any site investigations for the Commonwealth’s proposal to dam the Tweed and Clarence rivers? What were the sweeping assumptions that were used in the report? Can the minister confirm that there was no research on the energy consumption required to pump water more than 150 kilometres? Does the minister think this is an appropriate way to set policy? Can the minister also address the specific issue of why Commonwealth funding has been supported for the super pipeline to Bendigo but not to Ballarat, contrary to statements by the minister in the Ballarat media when he visited there that this proposal was consistent with the National Water Initiative’s principles and funding guidelines?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, as far as the forward estimates are concerned, I answered that question earlier; the honourable member obviously was not paying attention. It is an estimate. If there is the opportunity to invest more in a nearer time frame then obviously that is something that we would have regard to. The objective is to get on with the job. Having said that, experience in large water projects—which the honourable member cannot lay any claim to, I am afraid—tells you that invariably these projects—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Nor can you!

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

you are quite wrong there—always take a lot longer than one imagines and the time frame invariably is much extended. As I said, there are water projects which we committed funds to some years ago where the funds have not yet been drawn down. I am not suggesting that states have been negligent or slow or that councils have been negligent or slow, but these projects do take time.

Dealing with the Living Murray issue, the water through efficiencies tender, all the honourable member did was read back to me exactly what I had said, which was that we would not buy more than 200GL and we certainly did not have more than $200 million to spend, but it was never anticipated, we never suggested, that we would be buying 200GL or indeed spending $200 million. I was very careful to keep expectations very low. I genuinely did not know how much water would be available. Given the nature of the tender—it was a very valuable experiment; we learned a great deal from it—I did not know how much water would be available from that tender at an acceptable price.

Turning to the Tweed, it amazes me the way in which the Labor Party seem determined to continue the blunder of Kevin Rudd and Wayne Goss and continue to deny the people of south-east Queensland the chance for a sustainable water future. It was Wayne Goss, aided and abetted by Kevin Rudd, who decided not to build the Wolffdene dam.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) 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?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is pretty clear. Answer the question you were given.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am answering the question. The decision was taken in 1989 to not build the Wolffdene dam, notwithstanding that it was obvious that the growth in south-east Queensland was ramping up. South-east Queensland is short of water because there has not been effective long-term planning. When you look at planning for water, you have to have every option on the table. One of the questions that has been talked about for many decades is: can water be brought from the Northern Rivers of New South Wales, in particular the Tweed and the Clarence? So we decided to ask SMEC, the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, to do a brief desktop study—it was never intended to be anything more than that—to just look at current costings, based on the hydrological data that was available, and examine whether there was anything even in the ballpark, whether there was anything that warranted further investigation, because many people contended that there were no available options there. It is plain that there are a couple of feasible options on a desktop basis and, as the report indicated, further investigation needs to be done and there needs to be further discussion between New South Wales and Queensland. There is the potential for an integrated water scheme between northern New South Wales and south-east Queensland. Both northern New South Wales and south-east Queensland are going to need more water as they grow. So that report is literally no more than a first step, just to have a brief desktop analysis of some of the possibilities. It has been a very useful exercise from that regard, and clearly, as the report indicates and as I have always indicated, further work would need to be done. The reality is that we are committed to supporting—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister should stop his rhetoric and actually answer the question. The question that he has failed to address at all is: why were a number of sweeping assumptions made? Why was a committee asked to report on that basis? He says it is a desktop report. What sort of report into a dam for the Clarence and the Tweed is it that has no site investigations? Not surprisingly, he has not responded at all to his failure to support the super pipe going not just to Bendigo but to Ballarat.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Inevitably, in any desktop study you have to make a lot of assumptions, and that is what was done. The critical issues—and this is where the desktop study was very valuable—were: firstly, to examine the hydrological data to form a view about the amount of water that is actually available in any given stream, and that is critical: what is the level of regulation that could reasonably be applied to any given stream; and, secondly, to examine the cost of building the infrastructure. No sweeping generalisations are made there. Plainly, to take any project of this kind further, work involving many millions of dollars would need to be done, but of course you would have to get the support of the New South Wales government and the community, and commitment from the Queensland government. But, unless you take the first step, unless you actually put the option on the table and say, ‘There’s a piece of work. Let’s see whether we want to take this further,’ you never get off first base.

One of the problems with water planning for our big cities is that there has been a tendency to take options off the table and say: ‘No, we don’t want a new dam. We don’t like recycling because we don’t want recycled effluent finding its way into the drinking water system. We don’t like desalination because it uses too much energy.’ You take one option after another off the table and then you come back to square one and say, ‘But we’re running out of water.’ The critical thing to do with water infrastructure is to put every option on the table and promote an informed discussion. That report speaks for itself. I cannot expand on that, other than to make this observation: in terms of energy, water is very heavy. A thousand litres of water weighs exactly one tonne and it has a mass of one cubic metre. So moving water around costs a lot of money. The water industry is one of the biggest consumers of energy. But everything you do with water uses a lot of energy. Whether you are pumping it up hill and down dale, whether you are recycling it, whether you are desalinating it, you will find that every use of water is energy intensive—unless you happen to be fortunate enough to have a dam up in the hills and it can run downhill.

As far as Ballarat is concerned, we are still considering that part of the project. When we reach a decision we will advise all interested parties. I think that reaches the end of the list of questions.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Following the National Water Initiative in 2004, has the National Water Commission set up the required national register of water licences throughout the Murray-Darling Basin to identify all licence holders and to give the public easy and accessible information on who these holders of licences are? Can the volume of water that any one entity owns—be it a person, a business or a local, state or even federal government—be identified by name of person, business or government throughout the basin? If not, will the National Plan for Water Security and the $700 million that is being allocated to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission for in part water trading purposes ensure that such information is readily available in the short term—by July 2008, for example? Is the minister aware of any media reports throughout the country lately of companies with no interests in agriculture buying up licences in a big way? What concerns would you have if that is correct?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is quite a lot of water being bought by a company with no interest in agriculture. It is called SA Water, and it is the state government-owned water utility in South Australia. It buys water licences from mostly dairy farmers in the lower part of the Murray in order to augment Adelaide’s water supply. I do not know whether the member for Hindmarsh regards that as a bad thing, but perhaps he could put out a press release criticising SA Water and the Labor government of South Australia for doing that, if he disagrees with it; it is up to him.

In terms of a register, there is still discussion going on between the states and the Commonwealth, but I would anticipate that while water entitlements will be registered by the relevant states—and of course it will be a transfer on that state register that will constitute the transfer of title—our plan is to have one internet based register which, if you like, consolidates all of those state registers. So the honourable member could go to the internet and find out who owns what water and what types of water. He could find out what the reliability and security of the particular entitlements were in the different jurisdictions. So the answer is to have a basin-wide register, in effect, and with complete transparency.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can you give us a time frame when this will be up and running? And with regard to my question about non-agricultural interests buying water: are you aware of huge media reports about huge retail outlets—mainly the big supermarkets—buying out water licences throughout Australia? If so, what would the minister’s response be?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In terms of the time frame with the register, the honourable member mentioned July next year. That would be a worthy goal, but again this is a collaborative effort with the states. We are yet to reach a finalised agreement with the states, particularly Victoria, so I hesitate to put a precise time frame on that, but you can understand that we are committed to doing this as quickly as possible.

In terms of large retailers, I have not heard those reports myself. Under the National Water Initiative, the right to water is separated from land—although there remain some statutory restrictions in Victoria in that regard but not in the other states—but it is open for a non-landowner to buy water. There has not been a lot of evidence that I have seen to suggest this is happening on a large scale or in any significant way. Owning water—because of its nature, its bulk, its unpredictable reliability—without a connection or a direct involvement with agriculture poses very considerable risks unless of course you have another use for it like in industry or an urban water utility like SA Water, which plainly has another use for it. To buy water in a purely speculative sense is possible but, given the unpredictability of water availability, it is a very high-risk exercise.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer the minister to the latest federal budget which showed that climate change programs were underspent by a total of $89 million and that last year the department failed to spend any of the $50 million in funds from the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund. I note that in relation to clean energy alone a total of $37.7 million was not delivered. I refer the minister to information provided at Senate estimates last October where the department confirmed that between 1998 and 2006 Australian Greenhouse Office programs were underspent by 36 per cent. This seems extraordinary given that the government is constantly telling us about its climate change credentials.

I refer additionally to the Solar Cities program and to the announcement in June 2004 of $75.3 million for the Solar Cities initiative, but in that first year the government spent just $1.6 million—half a million dollars less than promised. The next year the government spent even less, just $0.6 million—that was $6 million less than budgeted. In 2005-06, the government spent $3 million—a total of $17 million less than budgeted. So over three years, in the face of the great environmental and economic challenge of climate change, the Howard government, it seems, has spent just over $5 million of its $75 million Solar Cities program; only seven per cent in total.

We should recognise that Solar Cities is a trial program, a program to trial technology that exists in cities around the world, where already it is part of the mainstream energy mix. Minister, can you confirm that the government has spent only seven per cent of its Solar Cities program over three years? How do you reconcile your claim that no country in the world is doing more to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions when your government—this government—confronted with the challenge cannot deliver on commitments of some three years ago?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dealing with the first point that the honourable member raised, which is the underspend, this is a furphy that was originally raised by Kelvin Thomson, I think, late last year. The Australian Greenhouse Office in 2005-06 fully expended its budgetary allocation and it was also very close to doing that in 2004-05. The government to date has allocated about $2.8 billion for direct climate change measures and that is achieving results. We will contribute to an 87 million tonne a year cut in CO equivalent emissions from 2010—that is equivalent to eliminating all the emissions from the transport sector.

The climate change measures are administered principally through the Greenhouse Office and the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources and include the more than $740 million worth of measures that have been announced this financial year, with the program starting from 2007-08. Solar Cities is a visionary new energy concept. It is experimental and involves demonstration. As with almost all of our solar energy measures, the idea is to demonstrate the technology and provide the demand that will in turn drive cost reductions through better technology, learning through doing and so forth. Four Solar Cities have been announced so far: Adelaide, Townsville, Blacktown and Alice Springs. They will receive close to $60 million of the $75 million for the program. That program is on track; it is doing well. I was in Alice Springs recently and there are some very innovative elements there. Solar has a great future, particularly in areas like Alice Springs, where the cost of grid connected power is so much higher than it is, say, in a big city like Sydney or Melbourne and so the cost differential is that much lower.

The honourable member attributed to me a statement in which I supposedly said that Australia was doing more than any other country in terms of addressing climate change. I do not know that I have ever put it quite that high, but Australia is certainly a world leader. I remind him that the great untruths that the honourable member spreads about the government’s climate change policy fly in the face of facts. Let us look at some inconvenient truths.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek to ask a question.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to finish my remarks. The honourable member has to grapple with some inconvenient truths of his own regarding climate change. Firstly, Australia is on track to meet its Kyoto target. Most developed countries are not. That is an undoubted fact. Secondly, we recognise the massive technological challenge that I spoke about earlier in terms of having most of our energy coming from zero emission and near zero emission sources by mid century. A key part of that has to be clean coal. That is recognised. Australia is playing a leading role and punching well above its weight in terms of clean coal technology development. The only other countries that are at the same cutting edge level as Australia are the Netherlands and the United States—because of its scale, it is obviously investing more than anyone else. Then we have forestry, which is another key issue. The member for Kingsford Smith derided the global forest initiative as a modest measure. This is the second largest source of emissions, but because it was not his idea he poured scorn on it. That is the vanity of the Labor Party’s approach to climate change. Finally, there is energy efficiency, which is a hugely complex area. There are great opportunities there. Which was the first country to announce the phase out of inefficient lighting? Australia. On those objective measures, Australia is playing a leading role in the battle against climate change.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We did not get an answer to that question; perhaps we will get an answer to this one. I refer the minister to his statement in the parliament on 26 March that through the Greenhouse Challenge Plus program over 750 members, all Australian businesses, are projected to achieve 15 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emission reductions by 2010—that is a reduction of about three per cent of our total greenhouse gas emissions. I also refer to Senate estimates of 22 May this year, which showed that, while there are over 750 members of Greenhouse Challenge Plus, only 85 greenhouse reduction plans have been independently verified and that, since January 2006, 86 members of the program have not renewed their membership. In other words, in the last 18 months more members have quit the program than the number of members whose emissions can be verified.

Those figures for emissions reductions are extrapolated for the whole scheme from the small number of agreements that are actually subject to an independent verification process. As the department stated:

We do not hold them to account to deliver on the program in the same way as a regulatory framework would.

So, in this entirely voluntary program lacking in accountability, with a higher drop-out rate than verification rate, which is, in the department’s words, ‘one of the key measures designed specifically to bring about greenhouse gas reductions’, can the minister verify the 15 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions by 2010 which he claims from the Greenhouse Challenge Plus, when more members have dropped out than have independently verified their agreements?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that on notice and answer that in a moment when I get some further information.

Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you will recall that you were a very active member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage, which produced very much a groundbreaking report, the Sustainable Cities report, tabled back in September 2005. You will recall in the submissions that came before the committee that one constant theme was the lack of concerted and coordinated action at the national level. Minister, can you explain the reasons why this report has not been responded to by the government in the almost 22 months since its tabling? You will recall you were a very active participant in debates about the recommendations and the outcome of the report; but, since you have taken over the portfolio, I do not see any evidence of that same zeal and commitment being displayed. Could you please advise what actions you have taken and intend to take to drive national leadership on the sustainability of our cities issue?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The short answer is that the report will be responded to on a whole-of-government basis. It is a groundbreaking report, and I was delighted to work so constructively and cordially with the honourable member for Throsby in its preparation. Without giving a piecemeal response, there are a number of recommendations that, in effect, have already been acted on—or at least the government have introduced measures which match the recommendations in the report. Doubling the photovoltaic rebate is an obvious example. The honourable member for Kingsford Smith will recall he announced he was proposing to double the photovoltaic rebate when he was not, but we actually have. It has gone up from $4 a watt, with a maximum of $4,000, to $8 a watt, with a maximum of $8,000, and as I recall—the member for Throsby can correct me if my memory fails me—that was one of the report’s key recommendations.

The key recommendation of the report which is subject to the greatest level of debate around the country—and, obviously, of consideration by the government—is the recommendation for a sustainability charter and, in effect, a reintroduction of payments analogous to competition payments which are for meeting particular sustainability benchmarks. All of the rest of the measures that are in the report are ones that, in many respects, are now broadly in line with government policy. For example, if you think about the—

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Garrett interjecting

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Take water. The honourable member scoffs, but take water: on the recommendation to promote recycling of water, what are we doing? The Australian government are funding some of the most innovative water recycling projects around Australia, be it the western corridor project in Brisbane or the managed aquifer projects in South Australia or Western Australia. We are well advanced on having national standards for the use of recycled water. That, while not particularly glamorous, is vital because local consent authorities need to know what the rules are when developers want to have recycling on their projects and so forth.

So I have given the long answer. The short answer is that it is being considered. The response will be forthcoming; it will be on a whole-of-government basis. But the honourable member knows that a number of the more specific recommendations are ones that either are consistent with or have become consistent with the government’s policies.

Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In light of the minister’s response, where he indicates that a number of recommendations, if I have him right, are broadly in line with government policy: does that mean, Minister, that the recommendations that the government review the current FBT concessions for car use with a view to removing current incentives for greater car use is broadly in line with government policy? Does the minister mean that mandatory disclosure of energy efficiency in greenhouse performance of residences at point of sale and point of lease is broadly consistent with government policy? Does the minister also contend that the recommendation in relation to lifting the first homeowner grants scheme and aligning it with sustainability criteria is also broadly consistent with government policy? He seemed to indicate in his response that separate and specific recommendations are being picked up elsewhere in terms of government decision-making and policies. Are those three specific recommendations, in the minister’s view, broadly consistent with government policy? And when will we actually get the detailed response to the report? You say that it is going to be a whole-of-government approach—I understand that—but you still give me no indication 22 months after it was tabled when we will finally see the response.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The items that the member for Throsby mentioned are not government policy; that is true. I used the term ‘broadly’ deliberately. There are a number of issues that are addressed there and I am particularly familiar with the chapter on water, which as the honourable member knows is of particular interest to me. The focus there on recycling and reuse is plainly in four square—

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s one chapter.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, but that is a very important chapter. In terms of energy, I mentioned earlier the doubling of the photovoltaic rebate. It was a very specific recommendation that the photovoltaic rebate be doubled. Whether that was a result of the wisdom of the environment committee being heeded by the government or other processes, obviously the views that were expressed by the committee clearly had a big influence on my thinking because I was part of that committee and I listened very carefully to my colleagues. But I think that, rather than try to pick off individual items, it is better simply to conclude by saying that there will be a whole-of-government response and it will be in good time. It is important that it be done thoroughly and comprehensively and, when it is completed, it will be published in the usual way.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer the minister to the government’s announcement in January 2006 of the $100 million commitment over five years as a contribution to the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, AP6. Labor endorsed this initiative when it was launched, noting that it was positive but very limited and quite modest in scale. Now, some 18 months later, we are yet to see the results of this modest initiative. This time last year, as the minister would be aware, the United States congress knocked back the US’s proposed $52 million AP6 funding. Republican Senator John McCain remarked that the AP6 was nothing more than a nice little public relations ploy. This year an AP6 meeting was scheduled for March 2007 but was indefinitely postponed and we are yet to hear whether any other country has made any other commitment other than to attend meetings. Foreign Minister Downer said in May this year the AP6 is making terrific progress. Since its foundering here last January, we are left to wonder exactly what this means. My question to the minister is: so far, how much money have China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the United States contributed to AP6? At the launch the Australian government said $25 million was exclusively earmarked for renewable energy technology. Can the minister confirm that this money has been fully spent or allocated?

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, it might facilitate the processes of the Main Committee if we moved to the next portfolio after the next question. Notwithstanding the recent intervention in the main chamber, we are now over 20 minutes behind. I would appreciate it if you could wind up this segment.

Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kingsford Smith is in continuation, and I am sure he will take that into account.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just repeat the question for the benefit of the minister. The question was in relation to AP6 and it was: how much money have China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the United States contributed to AP6? Following the Australian government launch, with a commitment of $25 million exclusively earmarked for renewable energy technology, can the minister confirm that this money has been fully spent or allocated? I also note the minister will be coming back to us with answers on the questions relating to the Greenhouse Challenge Plus.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the Greenhouse Challenge, the 15 million tonne abatement figure is based on action plans submitted by the nearly 800 members of the Greenhouse Challenge program. Similar to the approach taken by the tax office, and recognising this is a voluntary program, we have deliberately chosen to undertake comprehensive independent verification of a representative group of companies, which is about five per cent of the total numbers. This verification process has demonstrated that companies are undertaking actions and reporting accurately.

Turning to the AP6, Australia led the way in committing $100 million to get these practical projects underway. It was another example of Australia taking a leading role in addressing climate change. The United States has indicated it will provide $US52 million. That is still being confirmed through the US congress. My most recent discussions with the US government indicated that that money would be forthcoming; they obviously have their process to go through. The honourable member might have regard to this development: in President Bush’s recent speech about climate change, he proposed in effect a larger version of AP6.

It is the same concept but having the 15 largest emitters—the EU being one and the United States being another, so it would be the AP6 countries plus the EU and another number of large emitters who represent 85 per cent of global emissions—with a view to reaching an early agreement on an emission reduction strategy as part of and supporting the Kyoto process and the UNFCCC process. This AP6 is likely to become the template for what will probably be the most effective global response. In terms of renewable energy, almost all of the $25 million for renewable projects has been committed, and the total amount will probably be committed before the end of this year.

Finally, on AP6, it was never our expectation that all countries would directly contribute funds to AP6. Many countries, including China, India and Korea, are contributing expertise and other in kind resources in situ in projects in their own countries, where they are making their own contributions to the project as opposed to doing so through AP6. That is happening in respect of the almost 100 projects under AP6. Returning to the theme I started with, I cannot stress too much the scale of the technological challenge that the world faces. The member for Batman understands this very well.

We are to achieve the emission reductions—science tells us we need to—as a planet by mid-century. We will need to have all or almost all of our stationary energy and most of our transport energy coming from zero emission sources. There is a very good table in the emissions trading task group report which comes from the International Energy Agency. It shows the mix of the sources of emissions. It is perfectly plain. It is as at the year 2000 and, of course, when you extrapolate it out to 2050, the volume is greater and the contribution from stationary energy and transport is that much greater. So, to achieve these big reductions, we need to move to our electricity and most of our transport coming from zero or near-zero emission sources.

We have nuclear energy. The Labor Party are opposed to that, of course. They say that should not be an option. We have renewables. They have their own challenges because of their intermittency. We have hydro. The scope for increasing hydroelectricity is pretty limited almost everywhere in the world. So clean coal is going to play an enormous part in this mix. Every energy agency, every energy consultant, says the same thing. That is why the collaboration between Australia and the other AP6 countries on clean coal, particularly with China, is of such enormous importance. Ultimately, the solution to our global warming challenge will come through technology. Australia is seeking to have all of the technology options on the table. And, in respect of those technologies that need development, we are leading the charge.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of Transport and Regional Services

Proposed expenditure, $846,521,000.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the government allow the second reading of the Airport Development and Aviation Noise Ombudsman Bill 2007 to be debated prior to the next federal election? Will the government support the creation of a similar independent entity with similar terms of reference if introduced to parliament? If not, why is it that the government is determined to ensure that matters pertaining to federal airports and their development and compliance with master plans are exempt from public scrutiny?

Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, in response to the member’s question, I am very pleased to be here representing the senior minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services who, due to a very important speaking engagement, cannot be here today. I am happy to take that question on notice and provide the honourable member with the answers. I would like to take the opportunity to make some comments in relation to the matter before the House. Obviously, in relation to the budget, the 2007-08 budget continues the Australian government’s commitment since coming to office to build stronger regional communities and grow Australia’s economic economy through investing in our major roads and rail links. From 2009 to 2014, we have committed a massive $22.3 billion to the second stage of AusLink, which is the largest ever investment in the country’s land, transport infrastructure by an Australian government. Coupled with our funding commitment of almost $16 billion under AusLink 1, we are investing around $38 billion over 10 years to ensure our major road and rail links can meet growing levels of passenger and freight demand. This record investment will make it quicker, easier and cheaper for—

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order.

Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the honourable member seeking to ask a question?

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This process is about accountability and transparency, not filibustering with lengthy statements by the minister. Let’s get down to a question and answer process as intended.

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

The minister is in order. He has five minutes to speak on his portfolio, even if not answering questions.

Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, and it is an open and transparent process and I am happy to take any questions. I believe that it is appropriate for the government to spend five minutes outlining what we are planning under AusLink 2, considering we are having an investment of some $22.3 billion under this program. It is important that we have the opportunity to do that. Under this program, we are expanding our popular roads funding programs, which are critical to regional Australia—namely, the Roads to Recovery, the strategic regional program and the black spot programs. Projects to be funded this year under the AusLink program include the Hume and Pacific highways in New South Wales, the Geelong bypass in Victoria and Goodna bypass in Queensland. In South Australia we are funding an upgrade of the Northern Expressway and the Port Wakefield Road.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with the standing orders relating to the operation of the Main Committee, I seek to ask the minister a question.

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

Is the minister prepared to accept a question at this stage?

Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am prepared to accept a question.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With respect to the Reid Highway in Western Australia, will the minister explain to the House why the government allocated $10 million to the Mirrabooka intersection when the priority for both the councils and the state government is the Alexander intersection? Is the government also aware that projects worth $90 million out of a total of $93 million allocated to the strategic regional program in 2004 over a period of six weeks three years ago have not yet been completed? What has happened to the accountability mechanisms within DOTARS? Who is monitoring how the Commonwealth’s money is being spent? What is being done to get these projects completed or else recover the Commonwealth’s money? After all, they were announced over the six weeks of the last election campaign.

Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I find it quite amazing that the opposition would be critical of more money being spent on local roads and state roads around Australia. The particular project to which he refers—the intersection of the Mirrabooka-Reid Highway intersection—was in fact the No. 1 priority for the Labor Party and I just happen to have the Labor Party calling on us to fund that particular intersection. I am very pleased that we have been able to do that. I understand that there have been some interim works done in that region. But,even in April-May 2006, you had Labor’s Lindsay Tanner and the state member, Bob Kucera, calling on the Australian government to fund it, saying that it was still a very significant black spot and that we needed to do something with that. I am very pleased that the Australian government have been able to fund that particular project.

The strategic regional program has been a great success. It has been well received not only by councils but also by state governments around Australia. We have certainly had a number of rounds of the strategic regional funding program and we will continue to look at that in the future. We will be having further rounds of $150 million twice in the next AusLink program, increasing that to another $300 million. Of course, many of the projects that have been announced have been delivered and obviously many of those projects are under construction. If there are any projects that are not yet under construction, I am happy to provide the details to the member. But the important thing is—

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting

Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under the strategic Roads to Recovery program and under Roads to Recovery itself, around 99 per cent of all those dollars have actually been spent on building roads. That is why we are very strongly in support of assisting councils, in many cases bypassing the states and allowing the councils to get on with delivering better and safer roads in whatever regions we can.

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

Minister, for some time now I have been participating in a campaign for the widening of the Hume Highway, the F5, southbound from Brooks Road, Ingleburn through to Campbelltown. Minister, you will probably recall this, as I have written to you on a couple of occasions. On the last occasion, I wrote to the minister at the table on 9 May seeking to make out the economic case for widening the F5. The minister will recall that this is a stretch of road that sees more than 80,000 vehicle movements a day, 6,000 of those being movements of heavy vehicles. It is a main national piece of infrastructure, it is a piece of infrastructure which is critical to the development of the south-west of Sydney’s industrial and employment lands and it is something that this government has been put on notice about.

I know that the minister has probably received advice from the member for Macarthur. I do recall that he was quoted on the front pages of local newspapers trivialising this as a ‘project’ and wanting to talk about ‘highways in the sky’ or something to that effect. But I also know, Minister, that Mr Wayne Merton—oddly enough, the New South Wales member for Baulkham Hills—on 29 May actually made some comments. Reading from the Hansard of a debate he participated in, Minister, he said:

No-one disputes that upgrading the F5 is a worthwhile cause and it is obviously a matter that needs attention.

That was the Liberal member for Baulkham Hills. I wish the Liberal member for Macarthur would show a similar commitment to the project.

Minister, the budget sets out an expenditure program of $16.8 billion over a five-year period from 2009-10 for the AusLink 2 national roadworks program. What are the government’s criteria for prioritising projects under AusLink 2?

Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Werriwa very much for the question. His criticism of the member for Macarthur is probably just because he wishes that he had the profile of Pat Farmer. But it would be good to see the members working together on these issues. Look, I am happy to receive any recommendations from the local member. I am also happy to receive recommendations from the state government on prioritising these works under the AusLink 2 program. It is a vast program stretching through to 2014. We have conducted, under the AusLink department, some 24 corridor studies around Australia of which I believe 22 are now complete, if not the final two, at this stage. Obviously the Melbourne-Sydney corridor is a part of those considerations. We would certainly be happy to take any representations in relation to expenditure on that.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To facilitate that process, can the minister undertake—and I accept he is probably not in a position to do so at the moment—to supply an up-to-date spreadsheet showing the status of all the AusLink related projects, the expenditure, forward estimates, dates of expected completion and associated requirements? Can he also advise—this goes to the issue raised by the member for Werriwa—the status of the corridor review which relates to AusLink 2? At what stage are the negotiations with each state and territory government with respect to completing that corridor review?

Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Batman for his question. I understand that during Senate estimates Senator O’Brien asked a similar question in relation to the status of the projects. The department has indicated that it will provide what information it can in relation to those projects. These are important national projects and we are very happy to provide whatever information we can on their status. Obviously, some of these projects are under construction and some are still in the preparatory phase.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The corridor reviews?

Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The corridor studies are currently underway. As I indicated to the House earlier, my understanding is that 22 of those have been completed. They were all open for public consultation for a long period. In fact, the other two may already be completed. That forms the basis on which we can enter into meaningful negotiations with the states in relation to funding for AusLink 2.

I do want to make the point that AusLink is a shared program. It is shared funding. Gone is this notion of state and federal responsibilities and that the national highway is a federal responsibility and every dollar must come from the Australian government. I have to say that the New South Wales government has been very good in its cooperation on the Pacific Highway, contributing 50 per cent funding, and also with its 20 per cent involvement with the AusLink network. Certainly, in AusLink 2 it will be made very clear that we have expanded the network from the old national highway, including the roads of national importance. Further, we are working with councils and other states on where we can prioritise these projects.

I also have to indicate how disappointed I am with the attitude of the Queensland government, who continue to maintain the outdated notion that the national highway, as they still call it, is a federal government responsibility. It really does demonstrate some of the difficulties with states not having some responsibility within the funding criteria. We have seen some significant cost overruns on projects in Queensland, and I have used the analogy many times: if you were building a house and someone else was paying for it, you may not be quite as robust in considering or as concerned about any cost increases. At the moment, if there are any cost increases in Queensland, the Queensland Minister for Transport and Main Roads, Paul Lucas, simply puts his hand out, writes me another letter and says, ‘Tough. The Ipswich-Logan interchange went from $160 million to $255 million.’ Or he tells me that the Wacol to Darra section of the Ipswich Motorway, which was initially costed at $320 million, will now apparently be significantly dearer than that. I really do appeal to Queensland and to all the other states and territories: work with us on this. There is a lot of money here. We want to deliver cost-effective national infrastructure to all Australians. We need your cooperation to do it.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Regarding the spreadsheets, there is some urgency on this because a similar undertaking was given at February estimates and the spreadsheets were not supplied until April. So we seek that this be expedited on this occasion. On the funding arrangements—and I understand the nature of AusLink—there were different shared arrangements in AusLink 1. For example, in South Australia, essentially the government cut an 80-20 per cent arrangement. In some other states a 50-50 per cent arrangement was reached. Is it the intent of the government to have a consistent shared funding arrangement across all states and territories for AusLink 2?

Secondly, with respect to the government’s proposal for shared funding under AusLink 2, is the government proposing to fully meet the cost of the Goodna bypass as an alternative to the Ipswich Motorway or does it have an agreement with the Queensland government for a shared funding arrangement? If so, what is the nature of that agreement, as the government has clearly said today that AusLink 2 is about shared funding on all projects?

Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Batman for his further question in relation to AusLink 2. It is true that there were differing agreements between each state and territory under AusLink 1. Those agreements were negotiated in the main by the senior portfolio minister. They took into account some variations and some concerns from the states. I believe that in AusLink 2 it would be preferable if we could have a uniform agreement. But there will always be cases—and you would never want to isolate yourself that there are not cases—where we could enter into a different funding arrangement for a different project.

That has been the case with the Goodna bypass. The Australian government has indicated that it will fully fund the $2.3 billion cost. The Queensland government made it clear that it was not their preferred option, but certainly I have spent a lot of time in Queensland recently and the support from the community there and the local federal members is very strong. I cannot see the rationale of widening an already choked Ipswich Motorway and condemning the motorists of that particular region to traffic chaos for many years to come. At the end of the day you only end up with six lanes of traffic where ultimately, by building this Goodna bypass or the northern option, you can end up with two separate roads, which means that you are not going to have the blockages that you would have here and that would deal with the very rapid growth in that region for decades to come. I believe that in the long term it is the right decision to make and the Australian government is very strongly supportive of that. The Queensland government have made it very clear that in this particular case they do not favour what I believe is the best option and that they would not support contributing to that project.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister would be aware of the coal development that is currently under way north of the Murrurundi Range in the Gunnedah basin and that the government expended about $1 million in relation to a consultants’ report into improving coal train access through the Murrurundi Range, the Liverpool Range. I would like the minister, if he could, to give us a status report as to what the government is doing with that consultants’ report. Are there any intentions in relation to AusLink 2 to improve the access from the Gunnedah-Boggabri coal basin through the Murrurundi Range based on the six possibilities that were raised in that consultants’ report?

Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question. As you would appreciate, rail is not directly within my portfolio area, but certainly I am aware that, under the AusLink proposals, the ARTC—the Australian Rail Track Corporation—have conducted that study, and I am certainly happy to do what I can to facilitate any information for you in relation to the results of that study. It is a good opportunity to point out that under AusLink we have taken over the responsibility for the upgrading of much of the main rail network, particularly in New South Wales, and to improve the efficiency, particularly in relation to rail transport for coal delivery to New South Wales ports. It is obviously something that is of great interest at the moment, given the shipping incident at Newcastle and the number of coal ships that are queued up at the Newcastle port waiting to receive supplies. I understand it is an important issue for the honourable member and I am happy to provide what information I can.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to ask a question of the minister. It leads off from the previous question from the member opposite. Is it the minister’s experience that the states are up to date with their preplanning and planning? It has not been the experience in my electorate, where it took 4½ years to have the Gladstone port access road completed through a lack of planning and the state government instrumentalities taking that time to get their half of the funding together. There was a similar situation at the Bundaberg port ring-road. Is it the minister’s experience that the states in general, and Queensland in particular, are up to date with their preplanning to allow the Commonwealth money to be spent in a timely and efficient manner?

Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank my honourable colleague for that question. It is obviously of concern to all of us to ensure that the state governments actually have the information, the planning and the will to construct these major road projects. It is one of the difficulties with our federation insofar as the Commonwealth actually does not own any roads. Even when we construct them 100 per cent, they go back to the states as an asset for the states. We do not build the roads. We do not call the tenders. We do not manage the projects. So we are very much in the hands of the state governments in relation to timing. With the Ipswich-Logan interchange, which I mentioned, funding was available from around 2004 and yet construction has only just begun on that project.

Another good example in Queensland—and I know the honourable member is from Queensland and would be particularly interested in Queensland—is that we provided an additional $220 million in the 2006-07 budget which had to be paid to Queensland in advance by 30 June 2006 for projects along the Bruce Highway between Townsville and Cairns. It took some six months before the Queensland government responded to our requests for priorities of projects and then it was the Queensland minister who was claiming that we were somehow holding up the progression of these particular projects. We need to have constructive goodwill from the states and territories and the Australian government because we cannot build these roads alone. And the community do not want the delays; they actually want us to get on with building roads. I again make the point that we are concerned that in some cases in the states and territories there seems to be a lack of willingness to get on with those projects.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to ask the minister about the underspends in the Regional Partnerships program and in the Sustainable Regions Program. The Sustainable Regions Program, I suppose, is the more glaring because there is a $15.5 million underspend in that program and it is due to run out in 2008. Not only is there that $15.5 million underspend, there is a $9.625 million underspend in the Regional Partnerships program. I find this intriguing and I ask the minister to enlighten us.

Recently there was a gathering of the area consultative committee chairs in Canberra. I sought from the minister an opportunity to address the chairs, given that there is bipartisan support in this parliament—in fact, it was under me that they were established back in 1994-95. I thought this would have been an easy option to have responded to, but the minister refused. I offered to meet them separately and met more than half of them over the course of three days, but they tell me that their two major complaints are, in essence: firstly, that they are getting fed up with the inordinate amount of time it is taking the government to approve proposals; and, secondly, that their recommendations are not always taken into account. How is it that we can have the underspend on the one hand but complaints from the bodies charged with having to make recommendations to the government about the inordinate amount of time? That is the general question.

The specific question goes to the fact that, given this underspend—some $25 million has been rolled over into the next financial year—I know that this is now going to become a massive war chest for the government to use to make announcements just before the election. I therefore want to know why the government has not adopted the recommendations of this parliament for greater transparency in the way in which these funds are administered. With regard to one particular recommendation, why does one of your ministers, Senator Johnston, still say that SONA, the Strategic Opportunities Notional Allocations program—the under-the-radar scheme that ministers use to get themselves out of trouble just before an election—is still going to be available? It was clearly a recommendation of the Senate that that program be abolished.

Whilst we are on SONA, Minister, what is the status is of the Primary Energy Gunnedah grains to ethanol project? The reason I ask is that this was a project approved under the SONA guidelines. I remind you that this is a $1 million grant to the company that has not yet produced a litre of ethanol. I ask the minister why milestone 4 under that program has not yet been met. I also ask the minister if he is aware that the chair of the area consultative committee at the time this grant was awarded and a key project supported was Kevin Humphries, who is now the member for Barwon. Is the minister also aware that Kevin Humphries went into business with the proponent of that $1 million grant, Matthew Kelly, in July last year, in a venture called Mack fuels, to build another ethanol plant and that he still owns shares in that company? Is this what the Regional Partnerships program and the Sustainable Regions Program are all about, Minister? When are we going to get real transparency built into these programs?

Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I genuinely thank the honourable member for his series of questions because they give me the opportunity to highlight a number of initiatives which the government has put in place.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just answer the question.

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

The member for Hotham!

Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe it was the member for Batman, Mr Deputy Speaker.

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

The member for Batman, I should say.

Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support your ruling. To go back to the conference with the ACC chairs, that was a very successful conference at which all three of the ministers responsible for Regional Partnerships spoke on a number of occasions to the area consultative committee chairs and general managers. It was an opportunity for us to discuss how we can continue to have open and transparent discussions in relation to Regional Partnerships. It is interesting that the Labor opposition stand up here and criticise the time it has taken to allocate funding through Regional Partnerships. As members opposite would be well aware, there were some changes undertaken in the process for Regional Partnerships. There is now a three-minister committee. It is chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Special Minister for State, Gary Nairn, and I are on that committee. We meet on a regular basis to discuss partnership programs around Australia and approve them or otherwise.

It is an involved process by which we do take very seriously the recommendations of the area consultative committees. We take into consideration the departmental recommendations. We also take into consideration a number of other matters. But, at the end of the day, ministers are appointed to make decisions in the best interests of their communities. The honourable member claims that he was the one who set up the area consultative committees, and I for one believe that they are an integral part of providing advice to the Australian government. It is something that we very much value.

As far as the underspends are concerned, we certainly are working with the department and the area consultative committees to see if we can in any way streamline the process. But, at the same time, we want a rigorous process which looks at all of the elements for these projects. We will not rubber-stamp a project because of the time it has taken. We often will send projects back for further information before making a decision. That is something that I think is perfectly understandable and something that I would have thought the opposition would welcome.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And the Gunnedah ethanol plant?

Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As far as the situation with the Gunnedah ethanol plant is concerned, it is interesting how the opposition has changed its view on ethanol. At that time, when there was not so much focus on global warming and fuel prices, there was a really vicious attack on anyone who wanted to produce ethanol. There was seen to be a scare campaign that ethanol was going to damage cars. It really made it very difficult for anyone who wanted to get involved in alternative fuels such as ethanol. Now there seems to be a sudden change. Everyone seems to be wanting alternative fuels and the opposition suddenly supports it. But I remember that at that time there was a very strong and concerted attack on ethanol. Primary energy seemed to get linked up into that at that time. As far as the status of that project is concerned, I am happy to seek information from my department and provide anything that I can to you.

Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question to the minister is in regard to the project for widening the Great Eastern Highway in my electorate of Swan between Kooyong Road and the Great Eastern Highway bypass. Can the minister please explain why this proposal has received absolutely no suggestion of federal funding? The Commonwealth government has said that it is entirely a state responsibility even though this is the main thoroughfare that joins the eastern states to Perth and the main thoroughfare that links the airport to the city and therefore carries enormous volumes of people traffic from both the international terminal and the domestic terminal. Can the minister please explain why the Commonwealth has not seen fit to fund any of this project given that the mining boom is providing most of the income coming to the Commonwealth? Thirty thousand people fly in and out of the airport each week to work in the mines that generate the money that goes to the Commonwealth, but the Commonwealth cannot find it in its heart to come up with any funding for this project even though the royalties from the mining are going to the government.

Minister, I understand the project is worth $160 million, but the Commonwealth cannot even find it in its heart to come up with half of that money so that I can then go and argue that the states should at least fund some of the project. Can the minister please explain why the Commonwealth sees fit to spend $200 million on advertising for the coming election but cannot spend any money on this highway?

Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am aware of that particular section of road. I visit Western Australia regularly and obviously I travel from the airport to the city. I have had discussions with Minister MacTiernan on a number of occasions in relation to this piece of road. I have to make it very clear that the AusLink network was decided in consultation with and on recommendations from the state governments. We put out a white paper. There was extensive consultation with the state governments. They listed their priorities at the end of the day and they accepted the AusLink network.

Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question for the minister if the minister is prepared to take the question.

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

Is the minister prepared to take a question?

Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is this a supplementary question?

Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have not even got through the first one yet.

Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know that we are talking about AusLink, but the Commonwealth advised me in writing that they do not believe that this project in any way, shape or form comes within the guidelines of AusLink. Therefore, any consultation with the states would be irrelevant if the Commonwealth are not even acknowledging that this is a project that should be funded.

Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am talking initially about when we were deciding what the AusLink network was. Obviously the Commonwealth would have now written back saying that it is not on the AusLink network, so it is not part of the negotiations. What I am saying is that that was what was proposed and accepted by the Western Australian government at the time. Yes, there are current corridor studies and yes, the Western Australian government would have an opportunity—and I presume they have put an opportunity in to expand the AusLink network—but there is a limit to what the Australian government can do. We are providing $22.3 billion. There is a lot of pressure on the network that we have at the moment.

In the 2007-08 budget that we are discussing at the moment, the Australian government has increased to $1.7 billion its funding to Western Australia over that first five years of AusLink from 2004-05 to 2008-09. That is a massive increase of some 243 per cent compared with the preceding five years. The budget provides Western Australia with some $308 million in land transport infrastructure. You have $64 million for the new Perth-Bunbury Highway, to which we are contributing significant funding. You have $23.9 million for the upgrading of the Great Northern Highway, between Apple Street in Upper Swan and Wubin. There is $28 million for the east-west rail upgrading and passing loops west of Kalgoorlie and, under the Roads to Recovery program, $48.5 million for councils and of course $5 million for black spots.

So the Australian government is not walking away from its obligations of funding roads in Western Australia, but the state government in Western Australia needs to step up to its obligations as well. This is not a road that is on the AusLink network. I take issue with the honourable member saying that the Australian government is getting all the royalties from mining. The Western Australian government of course has significantly increased its revenue from mining. It is the boom state of Australia. They should be rolling in money. They should be able to provide money for infrastructure as well and it really is a matter for the state government.

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

Minister, once again my question is in relation to the Hume Highway, specifically the F5 and the widening of the F5 southbound from Brooks Roads, Ingleburn, through to Campbelltown. Minister, given that the draft Sydney-Melbourne corridor strategy, the draft Sydney urban corridor strategy and the draft Sydney-Wollongong corridor strategy, which you have already mentioned, have all listed the widening of the F5 south of Brooks Road as a priority, that the New South Wales government has now committed $1.8 million for detailed planning for the widening of the F5, and that the RTA would commence construction of the widening immediately after the completion of the widening of the northbound section of Brooks Road—somewhere mid next year—does the widening of the F5 south of Brooks Road feature in the government’s planning for expenditure under AusLink 2?

Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps to facilitate all the roads we could—

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

Does the member for Batman have a similar question?

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to get all the roads out of the way, it goes to the issue of the Goodna bypass.

Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I know it well.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have any contracts or agreements been entered into with the Queensland government or third parties with respect to its construction? Is it intended that any such contracts be entered into in this calendar year? Secondly, can the minister also explain to the other seven state and territory governments why the Goodna bypass, for example, is to be fully funded by the Australian government yet, for example, the Pacific Highway in New South Wales and the Hume Highway have to be fifty-fifty, the Deer Park bypass has to be fifty-fifty and the huge problem, for example, in South Australia with the northern road has to be shared funding? Why is the Goodna bypass special?

Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Regarding the F5 question, in relation to AusLink 2, the government has not made any announcements about the priorities of projects. I welcome the massive increase of $22.3 billion in funding up to 2014. That provides us with the opportunity to prioritise projects in consultation with the state governments around Australia. As I said, the 24 corridor studies will form the basis of much of that priority and, at this stage, the government has not announced any of the priorities for AusLink 2.

In relation to the Goodna bypass, there was the feasibility study which was funded by the Australian government—$10 million for the Maunsell study. At this stage, there has not been a contract entered into in relation to the northern options. Obviously, it is early days yet. We are very keen to get on with the construction of the Goodna bypass, and I appeal to the Queensland government to fully cooperate with the Australian government in relation to this project. We are fully funding it, as you make the point. That is a decision of government. We have made that decision and we will fully fund that project. We need the cooperation of the Queensland government in relation to land acquisitions, the moving of services, the calling of tenders and the construction of this project. It is an important project to the people in the region. It is an important project to the local member, Cameron Thompson; it is an important project on behalf of his constituents. He has lobbied very effectively on behalf of his constituents to relieve the traffic congestion in that region, and the Australian government wants to get on with the job of building the Goodna bypass.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the minister again about the underspend in the Sustainable Regions Program and the recent announcement made in relation to the Longreach airport upgrade. I understand the significance of this capital works program. Can the minister tell me when the government made it a condition of their grant that the Queensland government also had to chip in? Was that made clear to the proponents of this scheme when they put their expressions of interest in as far back as a year and a half ago? Why is this new conditionality now before us? Isn’t this just another means by which the government can promise to upgrade the airport only to dud them when a condition that was never part of the deal is used as the excuse to not deliver on the money?

I have talked about all the underspends. The reason we are getting underspends is that the government is not going through due process. It is making announcements on the run, it is making them in marginal seats to try and prop up their electoral interests and it is building in safeguards to avoid having to deliver down the track. That is the Longreach airport. I am pleased that the Minister for Defence is in the chamber. As a former president of the AMA he might be interested in this, because it is another horrendous underspend in what is otherwise a worthy cause, and that is the Rural Medical Infrastructure Fund to help get doctors into remote and regional areas—a fund announced in 2004 and for which $15 million was committed. But here we are, three years later, and only $2 million has been spent. Why is it that the government has failed regional Australia so hopelessly in terms of delivering on this program? Has that money been rolled over? Is it still available for useful capital works?

Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Hotham for his question.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Two questions.

Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Two questions. In relation to the first question, I will take that on notice because it is not directly under my area of responsibility. I would hope that the member does support the improvements to the Longreach airport. As I said, I will take the question on notice. I will respond to the member’s accusations that we are somehow trying to not provide—

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, can I intervene?

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

Minister?

Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the minister says he will take it on notice, does that mean he will give me an answer subsequently?

Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Hotham for his inquiries. I will take the question on notice and I will provide to him what information I can. I am happy to do that in relation to that issue.

The issue that I wanted to take up on that was this idea that the Australian government was sort of offering half funding on the condition that the states contribute and then somehow blaming the states if the project does not get up. I have to say, to take this opportunity, that I have noticed that that is happening right around Australia with the state governments. More and more they are reneging on their responsibility for projects, whether it be state rail or state roads or other state initiatives, whereby they are putting up projects and offering 50 per cent of what should be a 100 per cent responsibility for the states and then coming to the Commonwealth. Then, when the Commonwealth does not agree to fund a state government responsibility, they go back to their communities and say, ‘Oh, it’s all the federal government’s fault.’ It is not all the federal government’s fault and I think the community is starting to wake up to that in many states around Australia.

As far as the Rural Medical Infrastructure Fund is concerned, it is an important program and the Australian government certainly does want to provide these initiatives to the small rural communities. It was established as walk-in, walk-out community medical facilities with the aim of making it easier for these communities to recruit and retain GPs and allied health professionals. It is of course administered by my department. The department is working closely with the Department of Health and Ageing because they also provide input into the assessment of applications. But on 22 August 2006 the government announced changes to those guidelines from the RMIF, which do aim to increase the number of eligible participants. These changes include increasing the funding cap from $200,000 to $400,000 partnership contribution; expanding the eligibility criteria to allow local divisions of general practice to apply for funding as well as local government, including Indigenous community councils—the ICCs; allowing for the recruitment or retention of allied health professional services and/or general practitioners; and allowing funding of residential housing in certain circumstances.

As of 31 March 2007, 23 applications had been received. Thirteen, with a total value of $2.1 million, had been approved and nine, with a total value of $2.4 million, were being assessed. One application was withdrawn. I can only re-emphasise that the Australian government want to ensure that we can provide this assistance to small and isolated communities around Australia. As I said, we have shown a willingness to change the guidelines. We are happy to consult with communities in relation to that and to talk to area consultative committees to see whether there are any ways we can further streamline that program and get the money out the door in a more timely sense so that we can continue to provide better services for regional communities.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, with respect, this is a serial pattern of incompetence by your department. There are underspends in every program area. Regional development does not get much in this country. It has its Regional Partnerships. Some are lucky enough to have access to Sustainable Regions. You have the Regional Medical Infrastructure Fund.

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

Does the member for Hotham have a question?

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is: why does the minister allow programs announced by his government to so seriously fail in getting funds out to the people who need them?

Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would not support the idea that rural and regional Australia does not receive a large amount of assistance from the Australian government. We are very focused on ensuring that rural and regional communities around Australia are strongly supported. The honourable member may have forgotten the more than $1.7 billion every single year that goes directly to councils all around Australia in financial assistance grants—

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Crean interjecting

Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and, of course, Roads to Recovery, which we have increased to $350 million, the Regional Partnerships program and programs such as the upgrading of the rural and isolated airports and, of course, the Rural Medical Infrastructure Fund, another important program as well. It is very interesting that the Australian government seems to be having to pick up a lot more of the responsibilities that were traditionally local government and state government responsibilities. If the outrageous proposal by the Queensland government to amalgamate many of the local councils in Queensland actually goes ahead, that will put tremendous pressure on those communities. I have already made it very clear that we do not support the process which they are going through at the moment with the lack of consultation and the seven-member board that is going to basically draw some lines on maps which could, in many cases, wipe out the financial future of many of these towns. You talk about the Australian government supporting rural and regional towns. Without the councils, many of these towns, such as Barcaldine, where I recently attended a rally, those communities simply will not survive. It is very interesting that the Leader of the Opposition rushed up there not long ago and had a chat with the Premier and said, ‘I don’t think this is a good idea.’ His claim that if he was Prime Minister he could work closely with the states had its first big test. He basically got patted on the head and sent back to Canberra. He did not achieve anything at all.

The other reason why there are further delays in Regional Partnerships, Sustainable Regions and RMIF is that the Labor Party continually want to bag the Regional Partnerships program and other programs. They do not really have the interests of the regions at heart. All they are trying to do is play politics with this. We are doing the very best to ensure these programs are open and transparent, and are in fact delivering to the regions and the towns. It is very interesting that the Labor opposition have never supported Regional Partnerships. They have done everything to undermine it, bag it out and criticise it. If you go to virtually any town or community around Australia and ask them what they think of Regional Partnerships, they will tell you about the good work that it is doing.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. As the spokesperson for regional development, I take exception to the assertion that Labor has never—

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

You must be succinct as to where you were misrepresented.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He said Labor had never supported the Regional Partnerships program. We have. We have gone on record saying it. We have said that we want greater transparency. The minister should not misrepresent that position.

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

The member for Hotham has made his point.

Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to respond to that, Mr Deputy Speaker.

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

Do you claim to have been misrepresented?

Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I thought it was a question to me.

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

No, it was not a question.

Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will wait.

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

The member for Werriwa.

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

My question is in relation to the widening of the F5 and the Hume Highway southbound from Brooks Road. Given that three of the corridor studies, which I have previously referred to—and you mentioned the review of the draft corridor studies—indicate that priority should be given to the widening of the F5 for economic reasons and given that the New South Wales government has now allocated $1.8 million for the detailed planning of the F5 southbound from Brooks Road between Ingleburn and Campbelltown, does the widening of the F5 southbound feature in the government’s planned expenditure under AusLink 2?

Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, in respect of the comments made by the member for Hotham, my only response is the old adage: ‘Look at what Labor does, not what it says.’ It is all right for those opposite to say on the record that they support Regional Partnerships—and it is great to have that on the record—but you actually have to look at their track record: what they have done and how they have tried to undermine, delay and cause problems with the Regional Partnerships program at every step. I go back to that adage, ‘Look at what Labor does, not what it says.’

In relation to the F5 freeway, I know that the honourable member is very interested in it so I will provide some further details in relation to that project. The widening of the southbound carriageway of the F5 to the M7 and Brooks Road, Ingleburn, of about five kilometres was completed and open to traffic in December 2005. It is a $23 million project fully funded by the Australian government and it was essential to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the M7-F5 interchange. The widening of the F5 from two lanes to four lanes northbound for approximately five kilometres between Brooks Road and Camden Valley Way is now underway following the awarding of the tenders in December last year. The total cost of this project is $30.1 million with the Australian government contributing 80 per cent or $24.1 million. It is expected the project will be completed by May 2008. You have the F5 ramps at Campbelltown Road, Ingleburn, and the project consists of a northbound exit ramp that connects with Campbelltown Road north of the Campbelltown Road overbridge at Ingleburn and a southbound entry ramp from a roundabout built at the intersection with Williamson Road. It was completed and opened on 16 June 2006. The total cost of this project was $13.7 million, with the Australian government contributing two-thirds or $9 million, and the Campbelltown council contributing the remaining third.

The point to this is that, on this important road network, the federal government funding for the three projects is $56.23 million whilst the state government has only contributed $6 million towards one project. I guess the honourable member has asked me the same question that he asked me previously in a different form. I can only go back to what I said earlier in relation to projects in AusLink 2: we will take very seriously any recommendations from the honourable member, from the state government and any submissions that have been put in relation to that in the corridor studies.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I suggest that the order agreed to by the committee for the consideration of the proposed expenditures be varied by the committee, next considering the proposed expenditure of the Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs portfolio and considering the Defence portfolio after the Immigration and Citizenship portfolio.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There being no objection, we will follow that course.

Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $2,727,649,000.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to start, Minister, with some questions about child care. The minister will recall that just on Saturday he mentioned that he was concerned that childcare centres may increase their fees in response to the increase in the childcare benefit. The words he used were that he was not going to be a casual bystander. I just want to ask the minister a few questions in this area. It is a very important issue that I think all of us are concerned about. Has the minister actually received any information so far on childcare increases or, alternatively, has the minister actually received any information from childcare providers that they intend to put their fees up from 1 July, following the increase in childcare benefit?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have, this afternoon in Brisbane, in the suburb of Waterford, although I forget the name of the centre now. Allegedly—I do not know what word you want to use—it has written to its families saying that it is intending to put up the fees by 10 per cent on 1 July and that it will be easier to absorb because the federal government has increased CCB by 10 per cent. So we are having a look at what centres are operating around there. We will be making it known whether that is in line with other people’s fees and ensuring that the public have adequate information. Maybe they are way below—I do not know. If they are, they might be just bringing themselves in line with others. But we will look at those sorts of issues as they arise and make the public aware of the choices that they have available. That is what I meant when I said that we are not going to be a passive bystander. There are practical things we can do in advising the public and informing ourselves of the genuine situation.

On Saturday at the Queensland childcare meeting, the issue was raised by one provider in particular who was clearly concerned that I would show such an interest. I made it known to them that you have to be able to justify in the arena of public opinion that these are reasonable childcare rises, that they can be substantiated and that they are not a way of simply taking advantage of the generosity of this measure.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to follow that up: the minister, if I understand him correctly, when he hears of centres putting up their fees in response to the increase in the childcare benefit, is going to notify parents in surrounding centres of those childcare fee increases? There is no legal action or additional powers that the minister is seeking to use or have agreed to in order to take any additional action against these childcare centres?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If anything is done in an unreasonable way or in a way which might trigger the need for the ACCC then of course you can use those things. But, first of all, I think we can have faith that the majority of centres will act appropriately. In the event that they do not then I am sure there will be a number of things that can potentially be done. This is but one, then over and above that you have associations that are also interested in protecting the public interest and ensuring that the issues of affordability are canvassed and understood, so that they do not bring into disrepute this very important industry also.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a couple of questions on the 2006 Census of Child Care Services. I am interested to know whether the census has been completed. I assume it has been completed, so I ask the minister if it could be released as soon as possible—assuming it has been completed. As a related issue, last night in the parliament the minister said that there is no shortage of child care for the zero to two age group. I wonder if the minister could confirm that that is the case and, if so, what his source for that information is. If the minister could release the childcare vacancies data for children under two years, that would be helpful.

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the first question, I do not have that information. The draft has not yet been completed and I do not have a date for receiving it—so I am advised. In relation to the second question, my comments were actually in direct response to allegations that you have made on air at different times with me. Each time that they have been raised we have checked on the areas surrounding the allegations and found them to be erroneous on every occasion.

We will be in a position once the CCMS is in to be able to give a far more detailed breakdown of availability by age groups and, I believe, even smaller geographical areas than postcodes. That will help families; it will help the industry as well. At the moment I am going in and drilling in on a case-by-case basis when such information is provided by the public or allegations are made by the public or by Labor. The amount of work that went into propagating those maps which we provided to everyone for the six-month data is not a good use of time at the moment, given that in a very short time we are going to have the CCMS rolling out and that information will then be readily available on an ongoing basis and in a timely fashion. Remember that the information that I released earlier in the year in fact comprised the time lines from June to December last year. That was the best that was available. That was the only time it has ever been available, as you know, and time is now moving on, so we will be providing that information to the market as we get it once the CCMS is in.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I understand that correctly, the minister does not actually have any basis for saying that there is no shortage of childcare places for nought to twos. We do not actually have complete data—is that correct?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. What I have said is that the hotline has made it clear and has made that information available, and that, whenever allegations are made, we check around to see whether that information is correct. In every case we have found it to be incorrect, as you know, and we have always reported that back to whoever has been on air. Quite often you get the situation where people are referring—‘people’ being constituents or the media—to long day care. They do not take into account the availability of zero to twos in family day care. We take into account all of those things when making comments about availability.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would just make the point that the minister was quite categoric last night in the parliament when he said that there is no shortage of child care for the zero to two age group. He did not make any provisos that this was just in the areas where allegations have been made. He was basically saying that there are no shortages anywhere in Australia. It is an extraordinary statement to make given that we have now discovered that he does not actually have data available for all of Australia; he only has data available for those areas where we have raised issues. Anyway, I will leave that where it stands.

Just to follow up on another issue from last night, the minister said in relation to the childcare tax rebate payments that the average payment to low-income earners is $300 to $500. I think I am quoting him correctly. In the estimate hearings recently, the department confirmed that the average payment being made is $813. I just want to confirm that all of these figures are correct. The minister might recall that just before the budget there was a banner headline in the News Ltd Sunday papers which said that people would be getting $8,000. Can the minister inform us how many families will in fact get $8,000?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All three of those reports are correct. The average is whatever you quoted it to be in Senate estimates.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Eight hundred.

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, thank you. The second one is that that does not take into account that under the current law people who do not have a large enough tax liability to offset it are clearly at zero. These people will be brought into the net when it becomes a Centrelink payment and of course constituents and families are not going to be required to keep their receipts. They will receive money, even though they do not necessarily have a tax liability or a big enough tax liability. So it will differ very much. It will be as little as a few dollars, depending on their out-of-pocket expenses and then 30 per cent thereof, if they use very little child care. But the expectation is that it will be in the order of $300 to $500. The advice that I have received is that that seems to be fairly normal. The $800 we have already dealt with and the $8,000 would be for a family for whom 30 per cent of their out-of-pocket expenses is $4,000 and they have one child and that child has been in care for two years. I do not have the specific numbers with me, but of course if they have two children then it could quite feasibly be $16,000. Families have to remember that it is in fact per child per year and, because of the way we have now brought it forward, they will have the bonus of receiving those two payments, one when they put their tax in, any time after 1 July this year, and the other one commencing some time after September when it will start to roll out.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So the minister is not able to tell me how many families will get $8,000?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would you take that on notice and get back to me?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to have a look at it.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I think we can assume from your explanation that there would be very few families that would get $8,000.

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the event that we take that as a truism, it would mean that of course very few people are having out-of-pocket expenses of $12,000 and 30 per cent thereof, which of course would make a mockery of some of the other suggestions that have been made of $350 per week per child that families would have to fork out. That would mean that very few people are making that sort of payment. About 70 per cent of the children in child care are in full time, so that would feed into the number of people who would be making those high levels of payment and then receiving $4,000. We will have a look at the numbers for you.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Specifically, I want to go to a letter that we received from a parent in Port Augusta. The minister would be aware that one of the initiatives that he has in this year’s budget, which we certainly support, is the change of CDEP positions to proper jobs, and that will include some childcare positions. Our concern is that the Bungala Aboriginal Corporation childcare centre is in danger of closing down because there has not been any guarantee that it will receive funding as part of the conversion of the CDEP jobs. Minister, can you guarantee that Bungala will get these conversions so that we can make sure that the childcare centre does not close?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am just getting some advice on that. You are aware that DEWR is closing the CDEP there because of the low levels of unemployment. When unemployment is under seven per cent in an area, CDEP changes. I am advised that the organisation auspicing the child care no longer wish to continue with that, and they will obviously involve the CDEP. We have offered them other support—in other words, to replace the cross-subsidisation that CDEP was providing. I am unaware as to whether or not they are fully intending to continue that at this point. My adviser tells me that they are not intending to do so at this stage. If that is the case then we will look at it further. There are obviously always opportunities for other organisations to auspice such services. It is not an unusual circumstance in remote or in regional communities to have to find other suppliers. It is something the department is working on at the moment with the local organisation.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I understand that correctly then there is no guarantee that this child-care centre will continue. Is that right?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. Obviously, you cannot guarantee anything anywhere. I am saying that, if this organisation has made a decision not to run child care or auspice child care anymore, none of us can force them to do that. If that is the circumstance, we will look at who else may be able to provide appropriate child care and run that service.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The concern, of course, will be that those parents will not have child care in the meantime.

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They may not in the meantime.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The danger is that they are threatening to close it, and unless the department acts immediately they will be in danger of losing their child care.

I also want to raise some issues about the changes to spot checks that I understand the minister is pursuing. In his address to the childcare New South Wales conference in April this year, the minister talked about redoing the spot check form. I wonder whether the minister could tell us what changes he has directed to be made to the spot check forms?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are working with the industry to do that—when I say ‘we’, the NAC is—and my understanding is that they are due out in the next two weeks. It is the principles behind those forms that we have discussed with them; but, ultimately, it will be a decision for the NAC, with industry, to ensure that they are appropriate. I looked at 100 forms that had been completed, and I was extremely unhappy. I actually went and got a cross-section of the spot check forms and had a look at them to satisfy myself as to whether or not they were meeting what we were after. I think, as you would agree, Member for Jagajaga, if you go into a childcare centre you know pretty quickly whether or not it is a good environment, a healthy environment et cetera. What we are trying to achieve with the spot checks is to pick up anything that is grossly inadequate so that it can be dealt with immediately. We want to pick up things which should be dealt with. They may actually be a state responsibility. Sometimes when people are in the organisation, they may see things that are in fact part of the NAC’s responsibility.

There is the issue of detailed bits of paper being filled out. I described to one of those conferences an example given of a form that had been completed by a spot checker. Because the certificate was not in the appropriate place, in a footnote they wrote, ‘The certificate was not in the appropriate place because the building was being painted and the certificate was on the floor.’ It is an extraordinary story. And then it said, ‘Please explain within eight weeks’—or whatever else—‘why it was not so.’ And you say to yourself, ‘This is barmy.’ So what we want it to do is actually address the needs of the parents and our needs as legislators to ensure that the environment is as it should be, that it is meeting the requirements of the NAC and that we are not just creating paperwork for the sake of paperwork. They were the principles behind it, and the paperwork will be out there within the next couple of weeks.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister in his response mentioned that some of the issues might be matters that are the responsibility of state governments. In his remarks to the New South Wales childcare conference, he raised one of those, which is the matter of hygiene. In fact, he said specifically that matters of hygiene are not the role of the accreditation council and then went on to talk about redoing the spot check form. We would certainly be very concerned if matters of hygiene were not matters pursued in spot checks. We do think that these are very serious matters. Hygiene is a critical issue when small children are congregated together. I just want to know from the minister that the spot check forms are not going to exclude these matters. Yes, in some part they are the responsibility of state governments, but clearly they should nevertheless be part of a spot check.

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I absolutely assure you that, if they see something that is unhygienic, we have asked them to deal with that immediately because the child’s health is at risk. If it is a minor matter, a minor infringement—and, again, it might be just by way of advice—that is the sort of thing that should not be done. If it is a major issue then it is for the state health authorities to deal with. Our spot checkers are required to immediately inform their state counterparts and have them act upon that, who have the authority to do so.

Like you, I am also very concerned to ensure not only that the environment is fine but that the hygienic principles that we would all require around babies and young children are adhered to. What you do not want to have happen is, again, a big long paperwork trail back to the NAC for something which is a state government responsibility. Have them responsible for it, notify them of it and have them follow through on it, but deal with any hygiene issues that we have just mentioned immediately—as long as they are inadvertent and not wanton disregard for the health and wellbeing of their centre and their children.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I can just turn then to some of the other issues that are in another part of the minister’s portfolio, the area of Indigenous affairs, the minister would be aware that one of the issues that we have been concerned about is the underspending last year—this came up in the budget papers—of $60 million of unspent funds in the CHIP, the Community Housing and Infrastructure Program, for Aboriginal people. We understand from Senate estimates that the issue is now with the department of finance. I would like to know whether the minister has now received permission to roll over this funding into this year so that this money can be urgently applied where it is needed, and that is in building homes for Aboriginal people where they live in overcrowded circumstances.

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for her question. There are two things. We were not prepared to spend money in the same form that it was being spent previously and in doing so repeat the mistakes of the past. Hence, when that money was not able to be expended in a way that could be sustainable, I took the decision—and there was a plethora of issues around that dealing with states and territories et cetera that fed into that decision—that we would apply for that to be rephased through Finance. I have every confidence that that will be done and that money will be applied to this year. It is a standard practice. It happens across all departments. It happens across all governments, and there is no reason to suggest that that money will be lost to Indigenous affairs.

I take the opportunity to remind the House that this is the largest single injection into remote Indigenous housing that this nation has ever seen, being $1.6 billion. There has been nothing even remotely like it. Of course that $60 million will come into this new year. As of today, we are finalising details of major housing developments in a number of remote communities—and certainly in those communities the likes have never been seen—to occur in this dry season. As you would appreciate, the wet and the dry have a big implication as to (a) cost and (b) your capacity to deliver.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the minister expects that this money will be rolled over, will it be on top of the additional money that he has received—the nearly $300 million in new money—for remote area Indigenous housing? Will this $60 million be on top of that or will it be part of that?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This $60 million is from this year rolling forward—as in the budget papers, going forward. This is money being rephased and then you also have your money going out.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a related issue to do with delays in the building of housing for Indigenous people, I once again want to pursue money that was promised for the La Perouse community. I understand they were promised $1.45 million. What has happened to that? As I understand it, the money has not been spent. Will the people of La Perouse still get that money, given the government’s decision to shift the CHIP funding into remote areas? Have the La Perouse people now missed out?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Regarding La Perouse, I cannot speak specifically about the $1.4 million. I recall that there were health issues there of sewerage or septic overruns et cetera; there were health and wellbeing issues and the Commonwealth undertook to do that work through the CHIP funding. I will try to get back to you as to where that funding is at and whether work has been done at this point. There is a principle behind where we are moving to with La Perouse and other ICHOs—Indigenous community housing organisations. When I was walking down the street in La Perouse I was told that there was a ‘blow-in’—that was the term used—living in a particular house. There were two people with good jobs living in a house with a beautiful view over the harbour and paying a pittance of rent. The houses were designed to be for people who are of lower socioeconomic circumstances. That was a grave concern to the locals there. There were real concerns expressed to me while I was in La Perouse about the way houses are actually dispensed and rented out to various organisations. In particular, the women elders there felt they were being pressured in a very unreasonable way. I did raise these issues with the member for Kingsford Smith but he informed me that he had not been there at that point.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just so I have this clear, the delay is because of infrastructure works that need to be undertaken; is that correct?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not have an adviser here on that at the moment. I will have to double-check for you.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister get back to me and let me know why we have had such a delay, and when the construction on the five houses—I understand it is five we are talking about—will start and when he expects that will be completed? As I understand it, the houses are in very poor condition. If you could let us know when that will happensioner, that would be very helpful.

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will give you that update when I have it.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. On another related issue, the minister has been very keen to see homes built on the outstations from Wadeye and particularly to pursue home ownership in this community. I am keen to find out how much it has actually cost to build the four homes in Wudapuli and Nama, and I would appreciate it if the minister could let us know how much those four homes cost.

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have not been keen to build homes out there; I have actually been keen to see the expression and the desire of the locals fulfilled—that is, for them to own their own homes. It is not my desire; it is theirs. My job is to try and help facilitate that. Yes, four houses have been built there. I know this question was asked in Senate estimates. My understanding is that the cost for some of those houses has not yet been fully determined because they are in dispute with one of the builders or one of the suppliers, I am not sure which. The associate secretary of my department, Mr Wayne Gibbons, I think gave such advice and has taken that question on notice from your colleague in the Senate and no doubt will make that information available as soon as he can.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So at this stage we do not know how much they cost. How much money was given to the IBA to build the homes? I wonder if the minister has that data at hand.

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was not a specific amount of money given for houses in that locality. We have allocated money and provided it to IBA. They are currently about to go into contract for a larger number of houses, some of which will go into those regions. There was no specific amount of money provided to IBA, to the best of my knowledge, specifically for Nama or Wudapuli, but I could stand corrected there because I know we have allocated considerable resources to IBA, who have a public tender out for houses in a number of locations, including Queensland and the Northern Territory and maybe other jurisdictions as well.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just back on CHIP—and I should have asked this before when I was pursuing the issues around the $60 million—I wonder if the minister could actually give us the total amount that was spent under CHIP in 2006-07. Are you able to provide a complete figure?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to provide it.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. The minister of course has been keen to get agreement with the town camps in Alice Springs. First of all, I want to know whether the minister is still hopeful of getting a resolution to this issue. Obviously, we are all aware of the circumstances the people live in in the Tangentyere Council and the town camps. I think it is a shared objective that we see those homes and the infrastructure upgraded. I would certainly like to know whether the minister is continuing to discuss these issues and, if so, what the program is for resolving them. I did have the impression that he was still keen to get a resolution to this very important housing problem.

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I am extremely keen because, subsequent to us not being able to come to an agreement, it has been reported to me that another person was murdered in the town camps—a 23-year-old woman. That is an unacceptable circumstance. Unfortunately, it is not an isolated incident. The Chief Minister flew down to Alice Springs to try and conclude the negotiations. I know that she was as upset as I was that she was unable to persuade the membership of the Tangentyere Council to see sense in this matter. The Chief Minister and her Minister for Housing, Mr McAdam, and perhaps others, are continuing to pursue the matter. As we said in the main chamber today, the town camps are in fact under special purpose leases and they are the full jurisdictional responsibility of the Territory government. But I acknowledge that (a) this is a human suffering of an extraordinary degree, (b) it is totally unnecessary and (c) the Territory government, I do not believe, would have the resources to be able to do this. Hence, we are putting that money there. I have made it very clear, though, that I think it is unacceptable to put that money there and have it managed by the same organisation that has overseen the management of the houses, seeing the state they are in, when they receive municipal funding from the federal government to maintain those places.

I will inform you here that I have made the decision that, as part of normalisation, in all town camps—Darwin, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs and Katherine, as well as two in Victoria, one being Framlingham—I have requested the department to look at the adequacy of the provision of municipal services that the Commonwealth is currently paying for and to give me a report on those. Clearly it would be unacceptable in any other part of the country if your local council, which is responsible for your municipal services, was to provide them in such an inadequate way as to cause harm to its locals. I am asking for an independent report. I asked for that today—just to let you know—to find out what the standards are and what the state of such services is, considering that at the moment I believe the Commonwealth pays to Tangentyere $1.3-something million per year to undertake its municipal services; but it is not the only one. So I want all of those communities looked at because it is part of our overall package of trying to normalise services and increase and improve the services.

I never got the chance to clear the issue up for you earlier today, but the member for Jagajaga made the statement that it had taken considerable time to make that offer. That in fact is totally incorrect. We made an offer of $30 million which was going to upgrade the town camps to what I subsequently learnt would be a second-grade standard. We were utilising Connecting Neighbours money, and I learnt that that would mean you would have a cul-de-sac—called Abbott’s Camp, for argument’s sake—literally in the heart of Alice Springs. Its municipal services, its power and water supply, would not be as underground as far as they were down the road, which, of course, raises other issues. If any of us are serious about ensuring that we treat everyone equally, you do not have a second-class system for Indigenous people. Hence the further injection of funds—and you can see the magnitude of it—to be able to achieve an equitable level of service provision for all of those town camps, as is required everywhere else in Alice Springs. That allows for everything else to flow from it, including appropriate public housing and public housing tenant arrangements.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I understand it, though, you changed the offer to Tangentyere Council on 18 April by no longer requiring that people relinquish their entire lease. You actually ceded to their request that that they move to sublease just the residential areas to the Northern Territory government. That was the point that I was trying to make—that in fact this was a very late change and obviously a significant one because one of their concerns was having to give up the entire lease. So I do think that 18 April was very late in the piece, and it was at that point that you gave people a month to respond. I ask the minister: why in his opinion was he unable to get agreement with the council? What does he believe was the impediment to getting a negotiated outcome? What does the minister understand to be the problem that has not been able to be negotiated?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the first issue, that was a request of theirs that had come up from earlier negotiations and, yes, we did change and agree to their appropriately maintaining the underlying title, which means no-one relinquishes their rights to that land and what is going to happen to it at all. So that should not have been an impediment to a decision-making process; it should have actually sped it up. In relation to the second question, it is just a question that you would have to put to the people of Tangentyere. You get very conflicting advice back from different parts of the organisation and different individuals, so I would be simply speculating on the real reasons that underlie that decision.

Through my private conversations with senior members of the Northern Territory government, I know that they were confused. They were sure that a deal had been entered into, or was going to be, and that the majority of people agreed and then at the last minute it did not happen. We will wait and see what occurs and whether the Territory government can do it—at the end of the day, this is not the Commonwealth doing it; it is the Territory government, but we are providing the funds. They have as much interest as we do in trying to get an outcome on this, so I hope that they can overcome whatever objections are there. I left it open to the Chief Minister, expressing my willingness to talk to her at any stage in trying to move this forward.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does that mean that the money that is being offered, the $60 million, is still available—that it has not in fact been moved and allocated to another community? One community that the minister suggested it may be moved to was Halls Creek. Am I right to understand from the statements he has just made that the $60 million is still there if the Northern Territory government can get agreement with the council?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have made that position very clear. It was never going to Halls Creek. At a meeting at Halls Creek with Minister Roberts from the Western Australian government she had told me at that point that they were keen to put new money, additional money, on the table for Indigenous affairs. I think that is part of my duty: to be able to leverage other state governments and territory governments to put more into this particular area, with real reform. That is one avenue that is being explored. Another avenue that is being explored is in the Territory. We have had favourable responses from communities that wish to participate in trying to improve their lot, and we will continue to have discussions with them. I will not make those communities known publicly at this point until such time as they wish that to happen; I think that is reasonable.

The offer that I have left on the table is that we would not walk away from Alice Springs. I cannot guarantee $60 million, because that means I will sit on my hands with that money, on a hope and a prayer that one day someone will see sense about what needs to occur. If that is never to happen, we would probably be back here next year—if you were in that place and I was in this—with you asking: ‘Are you rolling over money again? Why haven’t you expended this money when it has been sitting there and there are other needy communities?’ So that is a judgement call that I as the minister have made.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But it is still there at the moment. I take it that that is what you are saying. Could the minister tell us where that money actually comes from? He mentioned that the original offer of $30 million was coming from Connecting Neighbours money. Where is the $60 million coming from?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Connecting Neighbours is all part of CHIP. It is all CHIP money.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So the $60 million is as well? I know that the member for Sydney is here, so we will move on to the Human Services area. Before I do that, in relation to another area of the minister’s responsibilities, disability funding, I am obviously aware of the negotiations which have been taking place—or not taking place, as may be the case—with the states and territories. Could the minister let me know what funding has been provided in the interim agreement? I understand an interim agreement has been entered into up until the end of this year. Is that correct?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are two things. First of all, as I indicated to the parliament yesterday, the ACT has put an offer on the table and we are now considering that. I wrote to all states and territories earlier this month and confirmed for them that the Commonwealth will continue to fund the Commonwealth/State-Territory Disability Agreement at its current rate, including indexation, up to—I say ‘up to’ and not ‘until’—31 December. Hopefully there will be a multilateral agreement before then so that the new agreement can come into place. In the event that negotiations stop altogether, then obviously that is there. That is the interim measure that has been put into place: continuation of the same level of funding, including indexation, through to the end of this calendar year.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just on the same issue, was there actually any increase in funding over and above the indexation provided for the next agreement? I understand that is just a continuation but, in the offer that was made to the states and territories, was there actually any increase above normal indexation?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, there was. There was an open cheque available to all of them to take up, which is better than an increase in indexation or any five per cent. It was a case of saying, ‘You come back to us about meeting unmet need.’ Whilst the CSTDA is an 80-20 split in round figures—80 per cent state and 20 per cent Commonwealth—and has been since 1991, we are prepared to pick up 50 per cent, which is exactly what Minister Della Bosca from the New South Wales Labor government had asked us to do in a letter to me in March of this year when he was representing all ministers, before he changed portfolios. That was the offer that was put on the table and that is the one that only the ACT has picked up. We will have a look at how much that is and whether we can do it, and you can extrapolate from that the percentage increases. That was real additional new money, but only on the basis that people would actually come up with new targets for unmet need that would be met.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I understand it, the minister had an actual deadline of 8 June for the states and territories to get back to him. Obviously, that has passed. Is that offer that he has just outlined still on the table?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The day that they sent me that letter was 7 May. I wrote back the next day, 8 May, saying how disappointed I was in their attitude, their capacity to identify the need and their capability or otherwise to find new money, considering that all but New South Wales had brought their budgets down in that time and one would have thought that they would have looked at their position in great detail. None of them undertook to put that into their budgets. I think that is a crying shame. However, I asked them in that letter dated 8 May to come back to me as soon as practicable with a detailed and complete breakdown of what they intend to fund, how they intend to fund it and what funding they require from the Commonwealth government. So I await their advice.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of Human Services

Proposed expenditure, $1,997,077,000.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services, Housing, Youth and Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to ask the minister a little bit about the announcement last week at the 2007 smartcard forum made by the minister on whose behalf he is here today that the access card project that the government has proposed will in fact be substantially delayed. It was not really clear from the minister’s proposal what his intentions are in this area. I think he said something like it was possible that there would be no legislation introduced at all this year. I would like the acting minister to tell us what will happen to the $1.1 billion that has been allocated over the forward estimates for the access card. What is going to happen if there is no legislation introduced this year? Can you tell us what effect that has on the spending proposed for the access card?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Sydney. There are two things. The minister, Senator Ellison, last week announced that an exposure draft of the access card bill would be released for public comment during the June 2007 winter sitting period and that has not changed. Australians will be able to comment on the proposed access card bill during the consultation period. He sees it as a very positive opportunity to consult more widely. He will be announcing details of the consultation arrangements once the exposure draft is released. In relation to the budget money, it is there and the government is still intending to do it, so it is an allocation against that expenditure. I think that should answer your question.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services, Housing, Youth and Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It answers my question, but it probably does not satisfy a number of the companies that have tendered for work in this area. There have been, it seems, a number of complaints from suppliers who have accused the Department of Human Services of expecting them to put in bids that cost them millions of dollars to produce in the first instance without really having nailed down what this smartcard is going to look like and whether you are going to get the support of the parliament to actually introduce it. Now it seems that this delay may be an indefinite delay. Indeed, if there is an intervening election, the project may not proceed at all. Can you tell us why we are in a situation now where an exposure draft is being released after companies have spent millions of dollars? Why was this more detailed consultation not done before these companies were asked to invest millions of dollars in preparing their bids?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Two tenders have been called to date—card insurance, and management and systems integration. These tenders have now closed and have been evaluated by the department. I am advised that the department met with the tenderers today to reassure them of the process and to take any advice et cetera from them so they know where it is going.

The minister has previously indicated that no major access card contracts will be signed until after the passage of the legislation and that remains his position. Of course, it is the prerogative of any incoming government to change that, if there is no contract in place—obviously if there are contracts in place then there are issues of contract and, obviously, liability if someone’s contracts are torn up. But that is the prerogative of an incoming government, so I could not comment on that.

The minister is cognisant of the fact that potential delays in the passage of legislation may result in revised time frames for the procurement and that is something that the department spoke to the tenderers about today.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services, Housing, Youth and Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is it the case that in the meantime those tenderers are prevented from bidding for other business because of the onerous confidentiality provisions that are included in this bidding process? Have they been or are they prevented in any way from bidding for other government work? Have they been sent letters warning them that, if they should complain about this in the media or indeed talk about these provisions in the media, that would cause them to be thrown off the short list of companies being considered?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I could not comment on the second one; I simply do not know. But I would say to you that, if there are any issues around their capacity to tender for other business, that is something they can take up directly with the department. This is a very large project—$1.1 billion—and probity is very important. Of course, you would not want to compromise that and have it dragged through the courts inappropriately, through inadvertently providing information or doing something outside of that. So I am sure that they are following all the due processes in making sure that this particular process is protected, in the interests of all Australian taxpayers.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services, Housing, Youth and Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a bit of a problem if they cannot bid for other business at the same time, though. Would you be able to check that and get back to us? Can you tell us what proportion of the Department of Human Services budget for the next four years is for the Office of Access Card and whether this delay—the release of the exposure draft rather than actual legislation being introduced—is actually going to see that share of the Department of Human Services budget reduced—the share that is taken up by the Office of Access Card? Is that money just going to be saved for later use or is it being redirected within the Department of Human Services budget to other causes or other measures?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The officials are attempting to find that for you. You know that the department’s portfolio responsibility is also across the Child Support Agency, so it is not that easy to get the breakdown percentage that you are after. I missed your first word—you want a proportion of it, whether it will increase or change; something to that effect?

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services, Housing, Youth and Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What will the delays mean in terms of the budget of the whole department?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a proportion I certainly could not say. Like anything, if you have delays you have the potential, but that is all it is at this stage—the potential for there to be an increase. Like anything, it has the potential to increase. On the other hand, you might find that technologies improve as well, so I could not say categorically. All the budget papers are are a breakdown in your expected costs and your expected expenditure in running departments and running programs et cetera. So that is what we have budgeted for at this stage, and no doubt there will be contingencies within the budget portfolios for various matters. I will just see if I have anything else for you—about 80 per cent of the cost is for the access card, $480 million out of about $580 million.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To the minister, the people of the Hunter and the Central Coast appreciate the quick response to the storms that occurred in that area over the long weekend. I have got a couple of questions that I need answered on behalf of constituents. One of them goes to a media interview by the Prime Minister where he said that people without power for 48 hours would be eligible for assistance. We have since received conflicting information that it is 14 days and we have searched the website trying to find details of the period of time that people need to be without power and we have not been able to access it.

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not quite sure that you have got the PM’s words right—and I am not trying to be funny here. I think you will find that he said ‘uninhabitable for 48 hours’. What we are trying to do is bring this in line with what we have done for Cyclone Larry and other disasters. The normal circumstances are if you are without power for 14 days. I am not doing that. In fact, I have instructed my department to tell Centrelink that without power—and if that is the only issue—it is seven days. However, because obviously this is not Far North Queensland, I am aware of the issue that you are raising. If, for argument’s sake, it is without sewerage et cetera, a house is inhabitable for 48 hours. So 48 hours stands—14 days is what was applied apparently in Far North Queensland. I think it is inappropriate, given the conditions down here, and we have said if that is the only issue it is seven days. But if there are a multitude of things which would make a house uninhabitable then clearly it needs to be shorter periods of time, and that is where the 48 hours apply. That is what we are asking Centrelink to be mindful of.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On that issue, could you point us to where that instruction is. Obviously a number of people are very concerned about these matters and we have been trying to find out where the changes to the 14-day rule are. Could you tell us where we can find what seems now to be a seven-day rule?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has come to my attention only today, via one of the local members. Obviously it is an issue that has been raised with a number of local members. We are trying to ensure that Centrelink acts in good faith. It is acting on what has been the standard to date, which was 14 days. I have said: ‘No; that is inappropriate. We are in winter in southern Australia and other issues are obviously pertinent here.’ Having lived in Singleton, I am only too well aware of the weather at this time of year.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I stand here, I have a number of constituents who still do not have electricity. What happens where there is an electricity issue, where there is an issue of being without water for a day and where there is an issue of sewage filling the yards? The person may have been away from their home only for a short period, but they are in a situation where they have lost freezers full of food and they have had washing machines and breadmakers blow up because of the flooding. Because of the sewage and the lack of electricity they have lost washing machines, refrigerators and cars, and some of these people are not insured. I would be interested in any comment you might like to make in relation to the seven-day rule and in relation to my constituents.

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As you can appreciate, I cannot give a running commentary on everyone’s circumstances.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I am not asking you to.

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The rule is 48 hours.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am trying to link it to a multitude of—

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand. I am trying to say that ‘48 hours uninhabitable’ is the guideline. You have to have guidelines somewhere. The Centrelink officers are trying to do the best they possibly can to be fair and equitable to everybody. We are very aware that some people do not have insurance. This is not an issue of, ‘You haven’t got insurance, therefore …’ We are well aware that people have lost the food in their fridges et cetera—all of those things. We also try to have equitable circumstances with other natural disasters. Hence, we have lowered the conditions relating to loss of electricity. We are in winter and we are in New South Wales; we are not in Far North Queensland. As the responsible minister I will continue to monitor this, so if particular things come up where we find that Centrelink, through good faith, does not respond in a way which we think is reasonable then I would be only too open to looking at those circumstances. This is about trying to meet people’s needs in very challenging and difficult circumstances but also about not going so far as to find some people doing the wrong thing, obviously, when others are so desperately in need.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have one follow-on question, which is to do with multiple utility losses. I was trying to raise with you, Minister, the case where electricity is gone for seven days but there are multiple utility losses, if you would like to make a comment.

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is just that 48-hours thing. Generally having a multitude will qualify, but it is a matter of it being uninhabitable for 48 hours. So it is loss of sewerage, loss of power, loss of water, water inundation—any of those things. It is not just the one-off; it is like a menu. Those things can add up to uninhabitability.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a couple of quick questions, Minister, on another issue. The minister would be aware that Centrelink normally processes all real estate reviews to make sure that people who are entitled to the pension have a proper pension assets test assessment. As I understand it, Centrelink seems to have stopped its real estate review schedule for 2007. Could the minister confirm whether that is the case? Could he also let me know how many reviews have already occurred this year and, if they have stopped, why they have stopped?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not have that information to hand, I am sorry.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the minister please let me know if they have stopped, why they have stopped and how many reviews have been done so far this calendar year?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will certainly pass it on to the minister.

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

I rise to ask a question of Minister Brough, the Minister representing the Minister for Human Services, Senator Ellison, in relation to a request by me, on behalf of the constituents of the electorate of Gorton, for a Medicare office in the electorate. The fact is that there was a Medicare office in the electorate, in Deer Park, but it was closed down some years ago. Gorton is the second fastest growing electorate in Victoria. It has two growth corridors along the Calder Highway and the Western Highway, and so the growth has been exponential in a very short space of time. Rather than seeing more government services in this particular area, we have seen fewer, along with the closure of the Deer Park Medicare office.

I approached a large proportion of my constituents and tabled only two weeks ago in the House of Representatives a petition of 4,000 petitioners who are seeking the government’s agreement for a Medicare office. I also wrote to Minister Ellison with respect to this matter and about a month ago I received a letter from the minister indicating that there was some electronic software that was useful—and I do not deny that that would be of some use to my constituents. He went on to say in a part of his letter: ‘The electronic Medicare initiative means establishing a Medicare office in Watergardens shopping centre’—which is the largest commercial area of the electorate—‘or in the electorate of Gorton would not be necessary. The new initiative would also mean no queues for claiming rebates.’

Minister, I firstly draw your attention to the fact that there are over 70 Medicare offices in Victoria, none of which are in my electorate. And, as I said, I was wondering if the minister could investigate why there wouldn’t be reason for a Medicare office to be in such a fast-growing electorate?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to explain the software, Easyclaim will basically mean you will have a Medicare office in every doctor’s surgery. This is something we have been pursuing for some time and it is being rolled out from later this year. It is electronically done in the surgery. I presume your electorate is like mine, where some doctors require everyone to pay up-front and then go to the Medicare office; others take part of the payment and get the rest later. This software will mean that those claims can be processed right there and then electronically, and it will roll out. If we did not have that, I would fully support your request to have a Medicare office, but I think your constituents will find—presuming that that starts to come into play later this year in your electorate and, if not, certainly early next year, well before we could actually get a Medicare office locked in—that their needs will be more than adequately met. In fact, a superior service is what it turns out to be, and it is because the doctor’s surgeries are now working with the Commonwealth to make this a reality.

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

Would the minister indicate to me whether in fact all constituents who would be claiming a rebate would be able to receive a rebate using that type of technology; and would they require credit cards or other forms of payments that many constituents in my electorate would not currently have?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They will be able to do so at any doctor’s surgery that has the EFTPOS system. There are any number of ways in which people would be able to access that, whether it is through credit cards or any sort of electronic banking whatsoever. I think you will find that the overwhelming majority of your constituents will not have an issue with it, because my understanding is that there are a plethora of different things that they will be able to use to access this.

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

Can I gather from that answer and the previous answer, Minister, that because of that software there would be no need for an office in Gorton? Would that mean that the government would be looking to close all offices in Victoria or across the country?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not being the minister responsible, I could not comment. It might be best if I ask the minister to give you a more detailed explanation for your constituents, a practical thing that will say what they would need to be able to integrate and work with this. I have confirmation from the officials that there has been a commitment that there will be no closing of Medicare offices anywhere, particularly in Victoria.

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

One other matter, which I am sure is very critical to many parents, is in relation to the carer adjustment payment that is under review. Indeed, there is currently consideration as to how parents would be eligible for the payment. As I understand it, the payment is an interim ex gratia payment that the government is offering while a wide-ranging review is underway, and the review is examining eligibility for carer payments and the payments affected in providing a safety net for carers of children with a severe disability. There was a very positive story—and I am happy to say it was a positive story—about a difficult situation for parents who are looking after their four-year-old child who is quite severely disabled and is indeed eligible for this payment. It was in the Herald Sun only some months ago. It indicated that the Prime Minister announced that Tyler Fishlock, who is the young lad who is a cancer survivor, was a recipient of the payment. I have had a series of constituents contact my office who find themselves in a very similar position to that of the Fishlock family. Firstly, I was wondering how long the review will go. Some of these families have contacted the department by way of phone, but they are not sure whether they would be eligible or not. Because the matter is under review they do not know whether they will ever be eligible. But so far it has been very difficult to explain why their position is so distinctly different from that very difficult case for the Fishlock family. I was wondering whether the minister could comment on how the review is going and whether I can give some certainty to the families who are in what I would argue is a similar situation.

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, this is a very emotive and very challenging area. What the money is for is an adjustment, and it is for children under the age of six. It is carer payment (child). There are two separate issues to be clear on. One is the review, which has nothing to do directly per se with the ex gratia payments. It is a review that had already been announced. It will run through this year and report either late this year or early next year. This is not the first time we have done it in government, and no doubt subsequent governments will do this as well. Clearly every baby is totally dependent upon their parents or their carers; hence you have that difficult circumstance where for someone with a disability there is no more or less care at that early age. Quite often you have genetic issues which do not manifest themselves for a couple of years.

We have actually struggled to get the parameters around this to make it work—the Fishlock circumstances—to explain. We now have the documentation out. It should have gone out on 8 June for anyone who had already lodged. So, if your constituents contact Centrelink, they should not bother themselves with whether or not they are eligible; they should fill out that application and put it in. There is an independent body that is evaluating every case. It is up to $10,000, it is for children aged under six and it is an adjustment package.

Going to the Tyler Fishlock circumstances, the poor fellow had cancer in one eye and then the other and found himself blind. It is fantastic that he is alive—in fact, when I rang his home he answered the phone! That is a good thing. But there is a big adjustment for a family and this money is aimed at trying to assist people during that adjustment. It is up to $10,000, so we will not make judgements here; we will ask people to do that. Where this interplays with the longer review is that, when the review is complete, the interim payment will be re-evaluated at that point as to whether it should go forward or not. This is an interim to fill in until that work has been completed. I hope that helps, but they should contact Centrelink; the documents are now available.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the minister, through the human services minister. I do not know if the minister is aware of recent reports about people with profound disabilities who have no prospect of getting better or being able to work being asked to fill in certain forms through Centrelink. We have had certain issues in my electorate, where constituents who have profound disabilities have been coming to see us. Their disabilities are such that they will never, ever get better—they were born with these disabilities—yet they were given such a torrid time through Centrelink in terms of completing forms, being asked for doctors’ reports and continuously being asked to fill in more and more forms.

One particular constituent had a child who had just turned 16 who needed to go on a disability support pension. Centrelink had all the information—all the medical records—yet the parents were asked to produce every bit of medical record that existed on this child from the day they were born. They were so frustrated with their dealings with Centrelink. Centrelink basically said to them: ‘Look, we can’t change this. This is what’s required. If you want this changed, it’s a legislative matter so go and see your MP.’ They came to see me and I got on to the minister’s office. I must put on the record that Minister Ellison’s office was very helpful and fixed the issue immediately. Within 24 hours it was sorted. The minister’s office told me that this should not have been the case—that, in this particular case, it could have been fast-tracked and it could have been fixed.

These people went through everything possible and Centrelink was constantly telling them that the only way they could do it differently was to go and see their MP so that we could do something in this House to change the legislation. If that was a one-off case, I would be ambivalent about it, but I have another seven cases here exactly the same, where they have been told to come and see their MP. All of them are in the same sort of situation. It is someone with a profound disability that is never going to get better, yet, again, Centrelink are asking for records that they already have. The question I am asking is: how many times will people with profound disabilities who will never get better—and we are aware of it—be asked to fill in forms and constantly be asked for records? If the case is that they do not have to, why are we getting people in the electorate office being sent to us by Centrelink, telling them that they have exhausted all avenues and need to speak to their MP?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot, to be honest, give you an adequate answer to that off the top of my head. I would like to see the seven so that we can take them up and find out if there is a systemic issue in an office or whether it is broader. If it is, then we would bring that to Senator Ellison’s attention to deal with. As you said, his staff are very professional and are trying to deal with these sorts of issues. When you are dealing with 600,000-odd people with disability pensions these days, things can and often do go awry. You do have to be aware that we are trying to protect the public purse but to do it in such a way as to be sensitive. Sometimes that balance, as you have indicated—and luckily Senator Ellison’s office was able to fix it—is not always where it should be. We would always take those issues up. If they are more systemic, we will see what we can do to deal with them.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have another question for the minister, through the human service minister. It is a different matter. This is about the social security agreements between Australia and Greece that were signed a couple of weeks ago. There is a bit of a grey area about when this will take effect. I believe that it has to be—

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services, Housing, Youth and Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’re too young for it, don’t worry.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have 10,000 constituents in my electorate that have been asking me about it. It was reported in one of the papers that it will take effect when it is passed through the Greek parliament. I suppose the question I have is: what happens if it does not get passed through the Greek parliament? Secondly, what will be Centrelink’s requirements of Australian citizens who left perhaps many years ago and who have absolutely no records? Some of them left the country after World War II and do not have birth certificates. Will there be any requirements upon them to prove that there are no entitlements that they can get, and where do they get this information when there is no record of them even existing in Greece many years ago?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the questions you raise are good ones and are probably why it has taken since, I think, 1986 to negotiate this. Since I was the minister who signed it, I will take full responsibility! I wish that were true. It has been great that they have got to this agreement. There are still a range of things that have to be gone through—ratification et cetera. I think 1 January 2009 is the date for its introduction. I will get the officials to give you a full run-down on how it applies to people before and after returning both ways. The very real issue that you raise about displaced people not having papers is an ongoing one, and we would have to be sensitive to that. I do not know the answer as to how you can physically address someone’s issues if there is no way of assuring yourself that what they are saying is in fact accurate. But let us have a look at that and come back to you. We have a little time to work on it and to try to get some proper answers.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services, Housing, Youth and Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know that the minister needs to leave, so I will bundle my two questions into one. In the portfolio budget statements for the Department of Human Services there is an increase in intangibles from $1.6 million in 2006-07 to $86 million in 2007-08. In budget estimates it was revealed by the departmental officials that it was due to the access card. Can you tell us whether these access card intangibles will still be spent, despite the fact that the exposure draft process is now delaying the whole thing? Can you give us an idea of what those intangibles actually relate to?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The provision has been made for ‘if required’. That is all we can say at this stage.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services, Housing, Youth and Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are 18 people working in the access card communications unit, while there are only eight in the communications unit for the whole department. That is more than double. What have they been doing?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the minister, I will take that on notice.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts

Proposed expenditure, $2,750,313,000.

Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With respect, Mr Deputy Speaker Haase, I was expecting the minister to be in the chamber at the time of this debate.

Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe the minister was very happy to have members of the department take note of the speeches and address them at the conclusion of those opposition speeches.

Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In that case, I am sure I have something to say on communications, information technology and the arts. I am slightly astonished with this arrangement. I am happy that members from the bureaucracy are here, but I find it extraordinary that the minister is not. Any contribution that we make from this side of the Committee in this area, I think, should be heard by the minister, with the greatest of respect. I want to put on record my astonishment that the minister may not be prepared to be here for this debate.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister obviously can read the Hansard but, having said that, I did contact the whip and I understand the minister is running late and, on behalf of the government, I apologise for the minister not being here. The minister will be here, I understand, as soon as possible.

Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

By way of explanation, the minister will be here shortly. The previous minister of course has left—that is blatantly obvious. The list of speakers from the opposition has been exhausted. I have no choice but to shut down the Main Committee in the absence of the minister. So I believe that the department would be very happy to take details of speeches from the opposition speakers, and the minister will answer all of those questions in the summing-up at the expiry of time for this debate.

Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank you very much for your indulgence and I take note of the colleague opposite mentioning that the minister is not here. I just want to make the point, without labouring it too much, that in this particular part of the debate on appropriations it is most appropriate for members of the opposition to be able to not only debate them but ask questions of the minister and then respond to those answers. It is very difficult to do that when the minister is not here. We respect the fact that he is not here, but it does not help open debate, which is what we have just had with the previous minister.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister is now here.

Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There he is.

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

We would accept that it is suboptimal.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Earlier this year the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts bought down a report titled Community television—options for digital broadcasting. It recommended a range of initiatives to smooth the transition for community television from the current analog broadcasting system to digital. There were 12 recommendations in all, but they included, perhaps most importantly, a recommendation for the provision of additional funding to smooth the transition and a series of options for ensuring that they had access to the digital spectrum as soon as possible to allow them to simulcast. In all of the submissions that we received from community television there was a recurring theme, which was that, as members of the general public—members of their audience—transferred from analog to digital in their homes, they lost access to the signal from the community television station. So what was obviously happening and what will continue to happen is that, as people move from analog to digital, community television effectively loses its market. The view was that the situation is now so dire that, unless access to spectrum is granted within a very short time frame, community television will effectively cease to exist.

In the most recent budget, the government allocated $10.1 million to help community radio upgrade and it has previously given funding to the ABC and SBS and the regional commercial TV networks for conversion to digital, but there was still nothing in the budget to assist community television to move from analog to digital. That lack of action moved one of the community television presenters from Channel 31 in Melbourne to remark:

With the Government trying to get more viewers to convert to digital, it almost seems as if they are actively trying to drive viewers away from watching community television … We call upon this Government … to reassure the station and community television sector that they are not being left to die.

What was the rationale for not including support for the transition to digital broadcasting for community television in the budget, and what action does the minister intend to take to facilitate the transition of community television from analog to digital in a timely manner?

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

I thank the member for Parramatta for her question and her interest in this subject. It may be that she is putting the cart before the horse. We want to do this in a very considered way, and for that reason the government has established, within the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Digital Australia to coordinate and oversee Australia’s transition to digital television.

Digital Australia positions have been advertised. The time for applying has closed and officers for Digital Australia are now being considered. Digital Australia will be located in Sydney. Its establishment is well underway. Digital Australia will educate Australians on the benefits of digital television in order to accelerate take-up and inform consumers about the need and the ways to convert to digital transmission as switchover approaches.

Importantly, and directly in response to the honourable member’s question, Digital Australia will identify sections of the community which may have special needs and coordinate efforts to meet those needs. Consequently, Digital Australia will consider all of the issues surrounding the diverse interests of the industry in the switchover process, including broadcasters, receiver importers, antenna installers, retailers—all will be called upon to participate.

Consequently, the government has the issue of community television under active consideration. It will take advice from bodies such as Digital Australia, which will be a focal point for providing both technical and policy advice. The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has not yet reached a final position, as the minister did in regard to digital radio. As the member has said, the minister allocated $10½ million for community broadcasters to participate in digital radio. However, the position of TV community broadcasters is front and centre of the government’s thinking and the matters are under active consideration.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for informing me about Digital Australia. While they are educating consumers, informing consumers, identifying sectors et cetera and undertaking that research, the amount of spectrum available to digital television is of course shrinking year by year. What spectrum does the minister consider might be available for community television at the end of this process?

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

I would have to take advice on that matter and undertake to do so.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I ask the minister to indicate whether there is any unspent or uncommitted money under the Australian Broadband Guarantee? If so, how much money remains unspent or uncommitted? Can the minister please indicate whether any unspent amounts will lapse at the end of the financial year or be reallocated across the forward estimates? Why is it that these underspends have occurred?

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

My reply to the honourable member is along the lines that I do not carry that information around in my head. It is not directly related to the budgetary papers. Instead, I will consult the program area to get the exact dollar figure that the member is rightly entitled to.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am surprised that a question that goes to financial underspends and uncommitting and whether money will be carried over across the forward estimates is regarded by the minister as not related to the appropriation and budget processes. I would have thought that that was exactly what these processes were for.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You ask the questions and he gives the answers.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My concern is that I am asking the questions but not getting answers. Can I also ask the minister whether the cabinet has finalised an announcement on the $600 million Broadband Connect program to supply broadband to rural and regional areas? How will the program be funded? Can the minister outline the forward estimates for the $600 million Broadband Connect program?

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

I am a little bit disappointed in the member for Grayndler’s preamble or observations prior to his last question. I think we are splitting hairs here. He did ask me about an underspend, and I am sure if I trawl through the minutiae of the budget papers in all of their extensiveness then I probably could come upon it. I simply do not have the capacity to do so, but I will ensure that somebody goes to the trouble and effort that the member for Grayndler requires. What I can say about the Australian Broadband Guarantee and the establishment of the broadband black spot program is that $30.1 million will be provided in 2006-07 and $112.4 million in 2007-08 to provide subsidised internet access for Australians currently unable to gain a metropolitan comparable level of broadband service at their principal place of residence or small business.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Albanese interjecting

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

If the honourable member knew the answer before he posed the question then perhaps he could have saved us both a bit of time. This measure includes the reallocation of $26.9 million in 2006-07 and $18.9 million in 2007-08 from the Metropolitan Broadband Connect program. I am glad to be of assistance to the honourable member.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That information was just read from page 95 of the Australian Broadband Guarantee document and did not go to the question which I asked—which was about the $600 million Broadband Connect program. Can the minister confirm that this has been approved by the cabinet? How will the program be funded? Will the minister outline the forward estimates for this program?

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

I will endeavour to be helpful to the member for Grayndler, but I am sure he knows as well as I do, and as do most members of this House, that the government has not yet announced the successful tender for the $600 million broadband program which the member refers to. However, he will not be kept in suspense for all that much longer; and I know he will be as supportive of the program as we are.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the hope of getting answers to some questions out of this process, I note that the government has shown a willingness to support the rollout of a fibre-to-the-node broadband network in the five biggest Australian capital cities whilst at the same time it is arguing that the rest of the country should make do with an undefined mix of technologies. Can the minister confirm the value of subsidies for satellite and wireless broadband in rural and regional Australia? Has analysis been undertaken to assess the cost of investing in fibre infrastructure to deliver true parity of service to rural areas? What is the difference in cost between providing fibre, satellite and wireless broadband infrastructure to rural areas? If a fibre-to-the-node network is able to provide broadband speeds 50 times greater than wireless networks in rural and regional Australia, does the minister believe this constitutes parity of service?

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

As Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry representing the Minister for Communications and Information Technology and the Arts, no, I am not able to answer the specificity of that question. But I will ensure that the minister for communications does so at her earliest convenience.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The merger announced in the budget of the AFC, the FFC and Film Australia comes into effect on 1 July 2008. We have been aware for a number of years that Australia’s film industry has been underperforming. Only last year filmmaker George Miller was reported as ‘feeling despair at what is happening with the Australian film industry’. The AFC’s National survey of feature film and TV drama production 2005-06 found the value of production activity had fallen by one-third from the previous year and the value of foreign features shot in Australia was significantly below the five-year average.

Now the government’s long overdue response has been announced, including the formation of the Australian Screen Authority, could the minister advise what evidence the government has to suggest:

the introduction of the new Producer’s Rebate will significantly lessen the call on direct funding from the Authority over time.

Could the minister advise what modelling the government has commissioned to back up this claim? Can the minister guarantee funding levels to the various government film agencies will not fall following the merger?

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

I thank the honourable member for Kingsford Smith for his question. I am a little disappointed in the negativity that underpins it because, after all, there has been no recognition by the member of the remarkable injection of taxpayers’ funds into the film industry.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s not true.

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

Not true! The producer rebate will provide a tax rebate of 40 per cent of eligible Australian expenditure to producers of qualifying feature films and a 20 per cent rebate for other eligible formats, principally television. Then there is the improved location rebate, which increases the existing rebate from 12½ per cent to 15 per cent, and of course we have established the new Australian Screen Authority. As far as I am concerned the government, on behalf of its taxpayers, is doing its job and it is about time filmmakers did their job and made films Australians want to see. I have waited a long time to say that. I feel better and I will say more.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is to ask an ancillary question.

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

I haven’t answered your first one.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, that’s right. You have confessed it now.

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

So there is no need to repeat it.

Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have, in this form of debate, the opportunity to rise and ask questions for another 30 minutes.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again I ask the minister: can he guarantee that funding levels to the various government film agencies will not fall following the merger?

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

Again I stress that I am disappointed that the honourable member for Kingsford Smith has not joined in the general acclaim from the film and arts community as to the government’s reform, in which we are taking the film industry on trust. They have alleged, not to the total conviction of some of us in the government, that their failures over the past few years have been because of financial disincentives and constraints. There are some of us who think that the real problem is in the storytelling. But be that as it may, we are about to find out, because the government has funding now in place for which there are no excuses for Australian filmmakers to hide behind. I am not in the habit of making commitments on behalf of ministers without their express authority. What I do know is that the spirit of the government’s injection of tens of millions of new dollars for the film and television industries would see us maintaining support across the board.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor certainly did recognise the reforms that were announced in the budget. I have been referring to comments by the minister in relation to there being significantly less call on direct funding from the authority over time. I want to also raise with the minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts the issue of film documentaries. The new film package introduced in the budget included a producer rebate, which for documentaries means that producers will be able to apply for a rebate of 20 per cent of qualifying Australian production expenditure. This rebate allows for 40 per cent for feature film producers. However, the government has also stated:

Direct funding will continue to be an important element in Government support mechanisms, as an alternative to support through the taxation system.

The question is: will documentary producers have the capacity to access both the producer rebate and direct funding or will they be restricted to one or the other under the new film package introduced in the budget?

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

The honourable member will be glad to know that funding for the individual agencies will be maintained in 2007-08. Funding for the ASA for 2008-09 and beyond will reflect the progressive uptake of the new producer rebate, which will become the primary source of funding for projects with commercial potential. That is how it should be, given that this is a package of $283 million. It is a complete overhaul of film funding. It introduces a genuine incentive for producers to attract strong investor interest and puts the industry on a more sustainable footing. I believe the government is entirely right—given the injection of $283 million to maintain funding for the next financial year and consider issues from then.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for that answer, which does provide us with some additional information in relation to the budget announcement about film. But I refer the minister again to the question about the specific details of the situation that documentary film producers will face: will they have the capacity to access both the producers rebate and direct funding in this ensuing period, or will they be restricted to one or the other?

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

The government and I are great supporters of documentary filmmakers. They do it hard; nobody does more important work than documentary filmmakers. Film Australia has an international reputation to be envied. We are very supportive of them. They help shape our culture and tell our stories in unique ways, often with a great deal of insight and courage. It is admittedly a favourite form of filmmaking on my part. I will have to consult the minister herself to get a definitive answer, rather than inadvertently misrepresent her by giving an answer on the run.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take it from that that the minister will provide an answer to that question following that consultation.

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

Yes.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to the resale royalty scheme issue that is being considered by the Senate committee currently inquiring into Australia’s Indigenous visual arts and crafts sector. In previous budgets it has been clear that a resale royalty scheme would not be accommodated by the government, but the Senate committee heard evidence from numerous witnesses in Canberra, Kununurra, Alice Springs and Darwin—and it is about to bring down its report—that the industry is rife with allegations of unscrupulous conduct by some dealers; fakes and rip-offs; and even, as the minister may be aware, alleged criminal conduct. Minister, given that this budget did neglect the urgent challenges facing the Indigenous arts and crafts sector and that the previous budgets rejected a resale royalty scheme, can you provide us with the evidence which would substantiate the government’s claim that a resale royalty scheme ‘would not provide a meaningful source of income for the majority of Australian artists’? And there I am quoting Senator Kemp from 9 May 2006.

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

In answering this question I think you have to draw a distinction between Indigenous artists and non-Indigenous artists. I think the case for a resale royalty scheme is much stronger for Indigenous artists, who during their own lifetime are not rewarded for the on-selling of their work. It may be that Senator Kemp was referring more to long-departed artists—and it would be their estates that benefited because it seems that, apart from a handful of very distinguished living artists, most are rewarded, in monetary terms, for their work after they have departed for that great art studio in the sky.

I have very mixed feelings myself about a resale royalty scheme. It has always been argued by many who are sincere and knowledgeable in the area that it would be a disincentive to purchasing young artists’ work, knowing that when you sell it, if it comes to that, you will lose a percentage of the sale. The studies of the French system are not clear-cut.

In any event, the government wants to wait for the Senate report, which will be a valuable contribution to informing the debate. At the moment in Australia we do not really have a great deal of experience to draw upon. We are looking overseas to other countries’ schemes. We have seen a handful of artists’ estates benefit. But the government is very sympathetic to the position of Indigenous artists, who are suffering the frauds and deceptions that the honourable member refers to.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again I welcome the thrust of some of the comments that the minister made, particularly in light of his acknowledgement of the significant challenges that Indigenous artists face and the prospects that a resale royalty scheme may or may not provide for them. I refer the minister again to the claim that Senator Kemp made that a resale royalty scheme ‘would not provide a meaningful source of income for the majority of Australian artists’. I ask the minister what the basis of Senator Kemp’s comments was and if in fact evidence provided by Michael Kroger on behalf of the auction houses was taken into account in the minister reaching this conclusion about a resale royalty scheme.

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

I believe that that is a question best put to Senator Kemp, not to Senator Coonan or me. But I hope the honourable member is not making any reflection on Senator Kemp’s capacity to take advice from a variety of sources, including those he knows or people he is friendly with.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He was a very good minister.

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

He was an outstanding minister; far better than his immediate predecessor, if I may say so, given his success in budgets.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who was that?

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

Let us not embarrass him. He is now safely ensconced in agriculture, so we do not have to worry too much. Ministers have to take advice from a great many people. The fact that Mr Michael Kroger is known to Senator Kemp would not have given his views any added weight. It may very well be that the view of Mr Kroger or anyone associated with galleries is a worthwhile view. I suggest the member for Kingsford Smith not by sleight of hand impugn the reputations of either a highly admired and respected minister who did a great deal for the arts or an individual in the private sector properly representing legitimate interests.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to the Australian Business Arts Foundation and the announcement in August 2006 by the government of an additional $1.1 million for the Australian Business Arts Foundation to ‘boost private sector support for the arts and add resources to the visual arts sector’. I refer also to the number of questions placed at estimates concerning additional information about the Australian Business Arts Foundation. In this instance, the funding for the program was 2006-07 and, clearly, it will come to an end this month. My question for the minister is: will ABAF continue to deliver the package to boost private sector support for the arts and add resources to the visual arts sector? If not, will the government ensure an open and transparent tender process?

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

The government’s credentials in the visual arts sector are strong, especially following the Myer inquiry and the increased funding across the board—and I would acknowledge the role that NAVA, the National Association of Visual Arts, played in that several years ago. So the government is not looking to penny-pinch on support for the arts broadly, as evidenced by the massive investment in the arts budgets now.

As to the particulars of the allocation to ABAF of $1.1 million, I cannot say without further advice. You have to be a little careful in the arts, I suppose, as in any area of government administration. A grant for a set period of time can often achieve its objective, and the fact that a government has approved it once should not be a guarantee that it continues in perpetuity, particularly if there are other priorities or pressing needs that that money could then address. I do not know the particulars of the need for the $1.1 million to ABAF for the private sector involvement with the visual arts. It may have done its job or it may be partly completed and need continuation in one form or another, but I do not think it should be a God-given right for any constituency that a time-limited program continues for ever more.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for that answer, albeit a partial answer, and ask again: given that ABAF funding for this program will be completed by the end of financial year 2007, will it be the government’s intention, endeavour or principle to ensure an open and transparent tender process for a program for the boosting of private sector support for the arts and additional resources to the visual arts sector?

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

I do not know how sincere a question this is because the member for Kingsford Smith did say that this was a matter that had been canvassed at length at estimates, so immediately the alarm bells started ringing. If it was pursued at estimates, it must be because the Labor Party have a political objective in mind. So I think discretion is the better part of valour here and I will take that question on notice.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This question concerns the program Playing Australia. During budget Senate estimates last month, a departmental official confirmed that (a) the number of applications for Playing Australia grants was about on par with the previous round, (b) the Playing Australia committee’s assessment process had been completed and (c) the minister had received the committee’s assessment. However, we note the Minister for the Arts and Sport failed to announce the successful applicants within the month of April, as his website states would normally occur. Minister, on what date did the minister for the arts receive the Playing Australia committee’s recommendations for the previous round of grants and what is the full explanation for the delay in announcing successful applicants?

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

I presume the honourable member knows of the very significant injection of funding into Playing Australia. I think I am safe in saying that in the May 2006 budget we took it from $2½ million or $3 million—do not hold me to the exactness of these figures—to about $4 million. It was a very substantial increase. It was in recognition of the success of the program. Playing Australia is acclaimed by regional and rural audiences across our nation. The government is a strong supporter of Playing Australia. I have no doubt there are good and proper reasons why the minister is still considering the recommendations of the Playing Australia committee. Bear in mind that they are recommendations—and do not read anything into this because I do not know the particulars of the issue the member is raising—and a minister does not blindly accept a recommendation and rubber stamp it. We cannot delegate completely our responsibilities. We can delegate the gathering of information and the sourcing of advice, but a minister has to carefully consider issues and stand by his or her own judgement. There is nothing unusual about a minister wanting to carefully consider recommendations from an advisory body.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, would you seek from the minister for the arts the relevant information in respect of the date on which the minister received the Playing Australia committee’s recommendations for the previous round of grants?

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

No, I am not inclined to. I feel that is something the honourable member can pursue in the normal course of his responsibilities. It does not relate to the budgetary matters before us.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am returning to the matter of community television. I appreciate that it is in the forefront of your mind. You might know that, at this point in the allocation of spectrum for digital television, the only options remaining are for a licence for channel A, which is the narrowcast digital channel which is due to be auctioned this year, or must-carry provisions on SBS or ABC, both of which would be likely to have budgetary implications, which, of course, were not in the budget. Minister, given that channel A is due to be auctioned this year and Digital Australia, which will make recommendations on this, is still being set up and has a whole consultative process to go through, will the auctioning of channel A be delayed until some decision is made on the future of community television?

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

I thank the honourable member for her question. The sequence of events here, as she well knows, is that legislation was passed in October last year to allocate two channels on the broadcasting spectrum for new digital services. Channel A will enable new free-to-air, in-home digital television services. Channel B can be used for a wider range of services, potentially including mobile and television services. Neither channel will be permitted to be used for traditional commercial television or in-home subscription broadcasting services because we believe that these channels should be used to offer new and innovative digital services to consumers.

Channel B will be subject to an access regime to prevent the possibility of holders of channel B licences monopolising the limited transition capacity on channel B. ACMA will allocate the channels and the ACCC will also be involved in the allocation process, and in the monitoring and enforcement of competition related obligations placed on the licence holders. The channels are expected to be allocated this year and new services are anticipated to commence by 2008. ACMA and ACCC have both undertaken public consultation processes on their respective roles in the allocation of the channels. The outcomes of these consultation processes are assisting ACMA, the ACCC and the government to determine the most appropriate processes and conditions for allocating A and B—in other words, a final decision on the allocation system is yet to be reached.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that the government made very strong statements in support of community television and indicated back in 1997 that it would provide spectrum, then promised immediately before the 1998 election, then promised just before the 2001 election and then promised again just before the 2004 election, should we expect another promise—the fourth one in a row—just before the 2007 election? Or, given that you have allocated, it seems, all the spectrum that is available, are you actually going to stand by—

Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the member for Parramatta that I have neither estimated, promised or intended to do anything. You might address your remarks through the chair.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Minister, do we expect to see another commitment made immediately before the 2007 election, which would of course be the fourth one in a row?

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

Significant progress has been made on the issue and it is a difficult economic, technical and even social process. The end is in sight. I ask the member to be supportive, cooperative and also patient in bringing it to a conclusion.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sure. Four elections in a row; that’s patience!

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of Education, Science and Training

Proposed expenditure, $3,305,044,000.

Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The formal situation is this: this debate has come on much earlier than expected. I believe that is due to the fact that the questioning intended by the opposition has not resulted. The officials of the department, along with the minister concerned, are on their way. I invite you to give us a preamble to your delivery to the minister.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to outline some of the perspectives that we are hoping to explore with the minister when she arrives. I do appreciate that it is six minutes earlier than anticipated but, with your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will attempt to provide the context in which the questioning will occur. Obviously, the appropriations section of the budget on education is of particular significance and interest to those of us on this side of the House as, indeed, I am sure it is to all of us in this place. There will be a range of specific questioning, and the opposition will be interested in the more detailed information from the minister as we go through the procedure.

I would indicate that, across all of the funding sectors of education in the appropriations for this portfolio, there will be a range of particular issues of interest and concern to members on this side of the House. Clearly, the higher education sector and the two aspects of full fee courses and the Higher Education Endowment Fund, the way in which the monetary allocations have been made and how they will then be implemented are of particular interest to us.

There are obviously some real concerns for us about what has happened with the HECS increases within this appropriation and we are quite keen to explore some of the detail of that with the minister. The Higher Education Endowment Fund is indeed significant. It has long-lasting implications for the university sector. There are some specific and important questions that need to be addressed in terms of that fund, being one of the major announcements and indeed highlighted so significantly by the Treasurer in his budget speech. It outlines to us the need to get some further detail on what exactly that fund will be composed of, how it will be administered, what sort of ongoing funding it generates and how universities will be able to access that funding. It would be no surprise, I am sure, to the chamber that there is quite a range of funding detail in terms of the Higher Education Endowment Fund that we would like the opportunity to explore with the minister when she arrives.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I encourage the member for Cunningham to keep going.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please feel free to encourage me, Mr Deputy Speaker! We are also particularly interested in the vocational education and training sector and the importance of skills shortage areas. Sadly, from our perspective, the failure to really seriously address funding of the VET sector is also an issue of concern. Clearly, we understand that there was the announcement of three additional Australian technical colleges, but beyond that there was very little joy in that sector and so there are some particular issues there that we would like to explore also with the minister.

The other very significant area that needs some further detailed looking at is the schools funding area. There have been a number of programs—for example, the literacy and numeracy vouchers program, which has now been embedded in recurrent funding after having been a pilot. I, like many others, I am sure, went through the trial period of the pilots with the literacy and numeracy vouchers.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My first question to the minister refers to the budget measure Realising Our Potential—Allowing More Responsive Universities. Can the minister confirm that, by lifting the cap on domestic full-fee-paying undergraduate students, a university that fills its HECS student places in one course within a funding cluster does not have to offer any HECS student places in other courses in that cluster?

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian government has lifted the cap on full-fee-paying places. As the member would be aware, that cap was 35 per cent in most subjects and 25 per cent in medicine, and that has been lifted. But the fact is that about three per cent of full-fee-paying undergraduate domestic places are currently in existence. So we do not have any anticipation that that will increase dramatically. The cap was essentially lifted because it was an unnecessary piece of bureaucracy that did not need to be there.

We have made it a requirement that the universities must continue to offer Commonwealth supported places and we will not allow universities to manipulate the provision of Commonwealth supported places to fill courses with full-fee-paying places. The way we will be able to do that is through the three-year funding agreements that are also a budget initiative from this year. Universities will be required to offer all Commonwealth-supported places, and we will not allow them to manipulate those places so as to create full-fee-paying courses.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note the minister’s answer but I will delve into that a bit further. Can the minister confirm that a university could fill all its HECS places in, say, economics, commerce and accounting courses, leaving high-demand courses like law completely full-fee-paying?

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian government will not allow a university to do that.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister confirm that Australia has more than 100 full-fee paying degrees for Australian undergraduates that cost more than $100,000, all of which occurred under the government’s 25 per cent full-fee university course cap for general courses and 35 per cent cap for medical courses? Isn’t the government’s decision to lift the full-fee cap just going to further increase that number?

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would have to check the specific figures that the member has quoted, but the point I made earlier is that currently about three per cent of undergraduate domestic places are full-fee-paying. That three per cent also includes people who undertake winter courses and summer courses, as they are called. So the number of people in full-time domestic undergraduate places would be less than three per cent, and we do not anticipate that lifting the cap will make a significant difference to that number.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister confirm that commerce and accounting students will pay up to $1,215 more per year for their degrees? Can the minister confirm that the government is cutting funding per Commonwealth supported student place in those disciplines by $1,029 per year? Isn’t that just shifting the cost of higher education further onto students?

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. What the Australian government did was to review the cluster funding arrangements in the lead-up to the budget. In consideration of that review, we increased the funding under the Commonwealth Grant Scheme for a number of courses. In fact, it would be worth me putting that on the Hansard record. It was an extra $557 million over four years for specific courses. Specifically, the Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding will deliver increases in 2008 for maths and science by $2,729 per place; for allied health by $1,889 per place; for engineering, science and surveying by $684 per place; for clinical psychology by $2,729 per place; for education by $109 per place; for nursing by $109 per place; for behavioural science and social studies by $840 per place; and for medicine, dentistry and veterinary science by $1,081 per place. It is up to the universities as to how they distribute funds across all discipline clusters.

In relation to accounting, administration, economics and commerce, we have aligned those with law. That means that the Commonwealth Grant Scheme amount will be the same as applies for the delivery of a law course. That will come into effect from 1 January 2008. However, any students who are already studying at university prior to 1 January 2008 will continue under the existing arrangements until the end of 2012.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to the minister’s previous answer and I go back to her comment in the House of Representatives on 9 May this year that universities can decide for themselves whether or not there should be any change to HECS. Minister, wasn’t there only one university in the country that did not increase HECS fees when given the option in 2004? Which universities does the minister expect will not increase HECS contributions for accounting, commerce and economics courses?

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are two sides to this picture. On the one side, there is the amount that the universities receive under the Commonwealth Grant Scheme and, on the other side, there is the amount that a university can charge a student under the Commonwealth supported place arrangement, the loan assistance scheme. In the case of accounting, administration, economics and commerce, we aligned the Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding with that of law. That means that universities are able to align those courses with law for student contributions if they so wish. The point that I am making is that, given that the universities will be receiving an extra $557 million in additional funding under this initiative and they can distribute the funds across all discipline clusters, I anticipate that some universities will take the opportunity to leave—we will call it HECS for the purposes of the debate—the student contribution loan scheme as it is.

As to which universities will do this, obviously that is a matter for each university and I hope that in due course we will see that response. As to whether or not only one university chose not to raise its HECS fees, I cannot comment on that. I would obviously have to check the records as to which universities did or did not. The point about the student contribution loan scheme is that students in accounting, administration, economics and commerce degrees have the opportunity to earn considerable lifetime earnings as graduates from those courses, akin to law students. The government believes that it is fair for students to contribute to the cost of their education, particularly in courses where the opportunity to earn significantly greater salaries over their lifetime than a person who has not had the opportunity to go to university is taken into account. I think it is appropriate that accounting, administration, economics and commerce graduates are treated in a similar fashion to law graduates.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister confirm that, if the university chooses not to pass on the HECS increases after the government’s transition funding runs out, a university will lose money for those economics, commerce and accounting courses compared to their current funding arrangements?

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is up to universities as to how they distribute the funds across the discipline clusters. As I said, the changes will only affect students who commence studying at higher education providers after 1 January 2008. There is a transition fund to compensate universities for students who continue under the existing arrangements. In four years time, when the transition fund is no longer applicable, all students will be operating under the same conditions. As I say, the higher salaries that graduates of accounting, administration, economics and commerce receive over their lifetime and the competitive nature of the labour market for these skills made it appropriate to align both the capital grants scheme and the student contribution level with that of law.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to move on now to the Higher Education Endowment Fund. In question time on 9 May, the minister said the following:

I thank the member for Perth for his question. He obviously does not understand that the endowment fund is on top of what the Australian government already provides universities for capital works and research facilities. Last year alone the Australian government provided over $240 million for capital and $460 million for research facilities. What the Treasurer announced last night is an endowment fund that will be invested, with the income from that endowment fund being distributed to universities on top of what we already fund. This is an unprecedented level of investment in Australian universities. The Australian Labor Party could only dream of such an initiative.

On 16 May the Australian quoted the minister as follows:

·              The minister confirmed it would eventually supersede other capital funding sources such as the Capital Development Pool. ‘I have been concerned that we have in place a number of funds, each with different guidelines and numbers of criteria, and that universities have to put in lots of different applications,’ she said.

·              ‘Over time I would like to see that streamlined’ through the endowment fund, which would have ‘much broader guidelines and much greater flexibility’ than existing mechanisms, Ms Bishop said.

Can the minister confirm which statement is correct? Will the Higher Education Endowment Fund be additional to or replace existing funding arrangements?

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My statements are perfectly consistent. My point is this: we have created the Higher Education Endowment Fund with $5 billion from this year’s surplus. My point that the Labor Party could only dream of creating such an endowment fund refers to the fact that the Labor Party operated budget deficits—and you cannot create an endowment fund out of a budget surplus if you operate budget deficits.

So the creation of this fund means that $5 billion in capital has been set aside. It will be invested. The dividends over time will then be distributed to universities—we anticipate on an annual basis. As the budget papers show, we have already anticipated that $304 million is an estimate of the funds that would be available to distribute over the three years from 2008. That would mean an extra $912 million. That is in addition to the funding that exists under the Capital Development Pool program. The Capital Development Pool program currently exists to provide funding for new universities and for regional universities, and the guidelines are quite specific. The point I made is that over time, as the Treasurer has indicated, the Australian government will continue to put budget surpluses into the Higher Education Endowment Fund so that that capital base increases. It will be a perpetual growth fund for our universities. Therefore, as that increases—and, presumably, the guardians of the Future Fund invest it wisely—we will have an increased distribution for our universities. The larger the capital fund, the larger the dividend.

We have a number of funds and programs that provide capital to universities, including the Capital Development Pool program. What I was suggesting was that, over time, it might be possible to roll some of the funds into the Higher Education Endowment Fund—so not decrease funding but actually increase the pool that is invested for distribution. But that is a matter that we would look at down the track. For example, this year we announced the new Diversity and Structural Adjustment Fund. What that fund will do is absorb the previous Collaboration and Structural Reform Fund. I am keen to streamline the opportunities for universities to apply for funding so that they do not have to apply for too many different programs but rather have the opportunity to apply under broader programs with broader guidelines. So the two statements are entirely consistent and are certainly not mutually exclusive.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister indicated in her answer that, over time, existing funding arrangements will be folded into the Higher Education Endowment Fund. If and when that happens, will that be on a recurrent basis? Will existing criteria for current funding arrangements such as those provided under the Capital Development Pool program continue to be maintained for funds that come out of the Higher Education Endowment Fund and how will this be implemented?

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These are all matters for consideration. We have announced the establishment of the Higher Education Endowment Fund. We are yet to develop the guidelines that will operate in relation to that fund. Those guidelines will be developed with advice from experts, from people qualified to provide that advice. In relation to the Capital Development Pool fund, universities apply to the Australian government for funding under that program. It has specific guidelines and it is quite narrow in its application. I am suggesting that, over time, consideration could be given—depending upon what the guidelines are for the Higher Education Endowment Fund—to merging the two funds. It might not be appropriate. We might not be able to do it. My comments to the Australian were that I am looking to ensure that universities have less red tape, less bureaucracy and more streamlined ways of receiving federal government funding. I will await the advice from the Higher Education Endowment Fund Advisory Board as to what would be appropriate.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate that we are going over similar territory, but as the minister would appreciate these are extremely important matters for universities when we are talking about their access to capital funding, so I am just trying to pin her down as much as possible. Going back to the minister’s comments in the Australian on 16 May, did the minister mean in those comments that the new Higher Education Endowment Fund would replace the CDP and/or other funds and programs? Would they be subsumed into the Higher Education Endowment Fund and how would that happen? Would it mean that those other programs would be abolished and, if so, which programs? How much are those programs worth currently? How much are they worth annually, separately and as a total? What would that mean for the total amount available annually to universities for capital and research infrastructure? Can the minister say categorically that the amount available will increase by $300 million per year? If not, what does it mean for universities?

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is not about the Australian government reducing funding for universities. I mean, let us get real. We have just announced a budget of an additional $1.7 billion in funding for universities plus the creation of a $5 billion endowment fund. The point I was making was that universities currently access a range of programs and one of them is for capital, specifically the Capital Development Pool program. I have no intention of reducing the capital that is available to universities. My point was merely of an administrative nature as to what would be easier for our universities to access and how that could be done in a more streamlined fashion. I will certainly take advice from the Higher Education Endowment Fund on the guidelines that they suggest should exist in relation to the application of dividends from that fund. The Higher Education Endowment Fund is expected to provide a dividend of over $900 million over the next three years. That is set out in the budget papers. In fact I think it is specifically $912 million. That is our expectation.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In Senate estimates the department of education said that all existing funding arrangements will continue. Dr Evan Arthur of DEST, at Senate estimates on 30 May 2007, responded to a question from Senator Carr. Senator Carr asked:

·              Are the officers aware of the minister’s statement that the higher education fund would eventually supersede the capital development pool? Is that an accurate report that appeared in the Australian on 16 May?

Dr Arthur responded:

·              I have certainly seen those press reports. All I can say is that I am not aware of any government decision that has been made with regard to changing the funding arrangements for the capital development pool.

Has there been a government decision on this matter? Is there a decision of which Dr Arthur is not aware? And what decision is that? What does the government intend?

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dr Arthur is absolutely correct in what he says. No, there is no government decision. If you go back and read what the Australian newspaper has attributed to me, you will see that it was a comment that I would like to see more streamlining of the programs that universities seek to access funding from. So, no, there is no government decision and there is no government policy. I made the comment in relation to the number of programs that are currently available for universities under which they apply for funding. Dr Arthur is absolutely correct.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again on the Higher Education Endowment Fund, it is unclear whether or not universities will have to provide matching funds. The budget press release of the Minister for Education, Science and Training states:

The Board would take into consideration whether universities had been able to raise matching funds, for example from state or territory governments, industry, alumni or members of the public.

However, the Australian Financial Review on 10 May reported:

·                       ... Professor Sutton said he had been assured by Department of Education, Science and Training officials that it was not a requirement that universities must raise matching funds to get earnings from the endowment.

Will the Higher Education Endowment Fund favour universities that provide matching funds from their own resources, endowments from commercial contributions or other areas? If so, doesn’t this mean that the fund potentially negatively impacts on those universities with less financial capacity, such as regional universities?

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, not at all. In fact, the Higher Education Endowment Fund will be an opportunity for universities to access dividends from a capital fund the size of which has not been seen in the higher education sector in this country. The whole idea of the Higher Education Endowment Fund is to enable universities to apply—whatever the persuasion of the government and whatever the government’s particular higher education policy is at the time—to an established perpetual growth fund for access to the dividends from that fund. Now, we expect that this fund will be supported by the opposition—that its creation, its establishment and the legislation surrounding it will be supported by the opposition—so that, whatever the policy of the government of the day on higher education and the funding of higher education, our universities will have access to a perpetual growth fund.

In terms of the consideration of applications, we will be seeking the advice of a committee—yet to be established, because the legislation has not even been produced in the parliament yet. We are seeking to establish a committee that will draft guidelines to advise us on the appropriate application of the dividends from the Higher Education Endowment Fund.

One of the other aspects of the creation of this fund was to encourage a culture of philanthropy in Australia. Our higher education institutions have not been as successful as their competitors overseas in attracting philanthropic donations. In fact, in Australian universities, less than two per cent of their income, their revenue, comes from philanthropic donations, whereas in comparable universities overseas it can be as high as 15 or 20 per cent. Our universities are obviously reliant on federal government funding, and that will continue, but there are additional avenues of funding from business, industry, alumni and state and territory governments that should be explored.

We believe that the existence of a Higher Education Endowment Fund will assist universities that, for example, wish to access funding from their state government. If a state government were approached by a university for the establishment of, say, a dental school or a medical school and it said to that state government, ‘If you commit $5 million’—let us just use a hypothetical example—‘for the establishment of a medical school at this university in your state, which will help us to produce medical graduates for employment in this state, we can then go to the federal government endowment fund and say we have a commitment from the state government and we can then seek to access the Higher Education Endowment Fund.’ But at no time have I or the department ever suggested that it would be a precondition of accessing the education endowment fund that they have matching funds. In fact, we specifically say that we would take that into account, but it is not a prerequisite—nor do I expect the advisory committee to suggest that be the case, because that is not what the government intends. So it would be naive not to look at the opportunities that exist for leveraging the existence of the Higher Education Endowment Fund from state governments, business, industry and alumni.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that proposed expenditure for the Education, Science and Training portfolio be agreed to. Minister, do you want to continue your remarks or have you completed them?

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With your indulgence, I will put this. I was asked a question about the capital development pool and I wanted to get some more details on that. The capital development pool figures in the 2007-08 budget for the forward years total $298.464 million. In 2007-08 that will be $80.092 million; in 2008-09, $71.425 million; in 2009-10, $72.782 million; and in 2010-2011, $74.165 million. So the commitment for the capital development pool through to 2010-2011 is $298.464 million and there is no government decision nor do we intend to roll that into the Higher Education Endowment Fund.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can we move along now to schools funding. I refer to the minister’s announcement that performance pay for teachers will be a condition of the 2009-12 quadrennium schools funding agreement. I also refer to the minister’s statement that the next 2009-12 quadrennium schools funding agreement will have $42 billion in funding available to schools. Given that the minister has revealed these details, when will she provide schools with certainty about how much money they will have in the next funding agreement?

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian government currently provides about $33 billion under the current funding agreement from 2005 to 2008. The expectation is that the figure will be around $42 billion, but that will obviously take into account a range of issues, including enrolments and the indexation figures. But I have given an indication of what I believe will be the likely figure for the 2009 funding quadrennium, which will take effect from 1 January 2009. We anticipate it to be around that figure.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to the budget measure Realising Our Potential: National Literacy and Numeracy Vouchers. How can the minister justify spending $457 million on a voucher scheme based on the failed tutorial voucher scheme, where only one-third of eligible students participated, and on the more recent, Reading Assistance Voucher program, which has been criticised for not using appropriate teaching methods in line with the government’s own teaching reading report?

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First, the question is based on a false premise. The Reading Assistance Voucher program was very successful. The member might be referring to the first year that we conducted a pilot. That relied upon the cooperation of the state and territory governments to provide to the Australian government the details of the parents who would be eligible for that voucher because their students, who were then in year 3, had not met the minimum standards for literacy in that year. The states that did cooperate and provide the information so that parents were given timely notice of the offer of the voucher had a significant take-up rate. The feedback that we have had from the evaluation was that it was highly successful in those states. There were a couple of states which did not cooperate with the federal government because they did not inform the parents in a timely way or at all and in those states there was a lower take-up because the parents had not been informed of their eligibility. The Australian government offered to roll the pilot over to enable those parents in those states to take up the offer and there has been a considerable degree of take-up.

The pilot, which was two years ago, was evaluated by Erebus International and we received very positive feedback, a very positive evaluation and so then in the 2006 budget we announced the Reading Assistance Voucher program, which was again for year 3. There has been significant take-up—I believe 13,000 people have registered for the voucher scheme that is in existence for 2006. Based on the success, the interest and the evaluation of the previous programs, we have considered the steps that the Australian government can take.

Next year, in May of 2008, there will be the first national assessment of literacy and numeracy standards for years 3, 5, 7 and 9 to be conducted in Australia. We anticipate that, as a result of these tests, there will be a number of students identified in years 3, 5, 7 and 9 who do not meet the minimum standards in literacy and numeracy. We are not prepared to stand by and let those students who do not meet minimum standards suffer as a result of not being able to access appropriate support in literacy and numeracy. Therefore, we announced a national tuition scheme whereby we will provide a tuition voucher of $700 to those parents whose children have failed to meet the minimum standards in the national tests in literacy and numeracy.

The interest in this voucher scheme is very high. There are many people who are concerned—and schools are also concerned—about, if their children do not meet the national tests, what support will be in place for them. So it is a safety net, if you like, to ensure that students who do not meet these minimum standards are provided with the opportunity to improve their skills. And, as the federal education minister, I cannot stand by and let students who essentially fail the national test not receive support to give them the opportunity to improve their ability in literacy and numeracy. The $700 voucher will be provided to those parents. We will be seeking the cooperation of the state and territory governments to provide us with the information of who is eligible. And given the success of the Reading Assistance Voucher program that commenced this year and will be delivered during the 2007 year, we believe there will be considerable interest and uptake for the vouchers as a result of the 2008 national literacy and numeracy tests.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have one quick follow-up question if the minister—

Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is this the last question?

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are continuing with education. The timing is indicative. It does not in fact determine where we go with this. It is purely indicative. If there are still matters to be dealt with in terms of the education portfolio, we will deal with them.

Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I disagree. The minister is here ready for his session at 6.50 and the time is allocated. It was agreed to by the whips.

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

That is fine. I am aware of the fact that we have had a division and that division has taken some time, therefore I take that as indicative rather than being something that is legislated.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not hold the committee up with the range of questions I would love to ask on Australian technical colleges, but can the minister just answer one follow-up question to the answer she just gave? I now refer to the budget measure Realising Our Potential—Rewarding Schools For Improving Literacy and Numeracy Outcomes. I ask the minister: why is the government directing $50 million to schools that have met literacy and numeracy benchmarks through $50,000 payments instead of investing that money in schools that need extra assistance in order to make the necessary improvements?

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian government is focusing on ensuring that students who fail to meet the literacy and numeracy standard in years 3, 5, 7 and 9 are provided with support so that we can lift those standards. Likewise, we know that parents are concerned about standards in schools. We are aware that employers are concerned that young people lack these fundamental skills in literacy and numeracy and we have all heard stories and been told by universities that our universities even have to offer remedial classes in English for year 12 graduates. Year 12 graduates who go on to university would be considered amongst our best and brightest students and yet universities have to offer remedial English classes. So we are obviously concerned about the levels of literacy and numeracy.

There are some schools that have made an extraordinary effort to lift the standards—low-performing schools who have managed to lift the literacy and numeracy standards by a dedicated focus, by specific resource materials and by ensuring that literacy and numeracy are among the core skills that they seek to instil in their students. We believe that those schools have a great story to tell. Schools that have been able to demonstrate substantial improvement in the literacy and numeracy achievements of their students, as measured by the national assessments and by their own applications, should be rewarded for their efforts in doing so. Those schools will then be able to use that funding to reward their teachers, to develop more resource material and to be used as best practice models for other schools around the country that are seeking to improve literacy and numeracy standards.

It is our hope that, over time, schools that are currently underperforming in literacy and numeracy will be assisted by the best practice models that other schools have been able to develop and that we will be able to lift standards across the board. But, of course, we can only do so much. At the end of the day, the state and territory governments are responsible for the education systems in their states. I think it is a matter of considerable concern that literacy and numeracy levels in this country are falling. We must do all that we can as a federal government and in conjunction with state and territory governments to lift the literacy and numeracy standards. These are the fundamental skills that will ensure that students have an opportunity to succeed in life, go on to further education and training or get a job. I certainly make no apologies for the Australian government’s focus on rewarding schools who have been able to lift standards in literacy and numeracy and, likewise, providing parents with the safety net of support in the form of a $700 voucher for those students who have not met minimum standards in literacy and numeracy.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of Immigration and Citizenship

Proposed expenditure, $1,566,212,000.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration, Integration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to kick this off with a question to the minister: which parts of the budget expenditure are designed to achieve assimilation?

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Assimilation is not the government’s policy.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration, Integration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could the minister explain why the Prime Minister thinks it is?

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can explain to the honourable member the government’s policy. It is one of integration. The great achievement of Australia, particularly in the last six decades since the end of the Second World War, has been our ability, under governments of both political persuasions, to balance two factors: integration and diversity. That balance is not a scientific outcome; it is a matter of making judgements and monetary policies and trying to achieve as best one can, from time to time in differing circumstances, the way as to how we achieve that balance. But that is the government’s approach.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration, Integration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How would an assimilation model be different?

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a hypothetical question and I do not have to answer that.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration, Integration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While it is a hypothetical, it is a hypothetical that the Prime Minister asserts and he uses that term. I use the expression deliberately, with respect to assimilation. What the minister said in terms of the importance of integration is something with which I do not differ, and it is why my portfolio has integration in the title. But it is curious that the Prime Minister, quite explicitly, purports something that the minister now tells us is not government policy. Minister, the media unit is not being used in the way it used to be used. Could you please explain how the role of the media unit has changed now that you are the minister?

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The media unit is being used extensively and will continue to be used extensively. As the honourable member would know, there is always a balance between those matters responded to directly by the minister’s office and those responded to directly by the department through the media unit. The media unit is doing a lot of work—for example, in relation to the new citizenship proposals. There is a quite considerable amount of work being done by the media unit and it will continue to be a valuable part of the department.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration, Integration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who provides advice to the minister prior to the minister making media statements?

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That depends on the circumstances.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration, Integration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In Senate estimates, Senator Crossin referred to the minister’s public statements about the International Organisation for Migration being an NGO. Senator Crossin’s question to Mr Metcalfe was:

So how could the minister have got that so wrong?

The response from Mr Metcalfe was:

I think you would have to ask the minister ...

Minister, how did you get it so wrong?

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was referring, if one looks at the context of my remarks at that time, broadly to a number of organisations of which the International Organisation for Migration is one. I clearly understand the difference between NGOs as normally understood and the IOM in this regard.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration, Integration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, how could Sri Lankan asylum seekers have applied for refugee status whilst still in their home country?

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would have thought the honourable gentleman opposite would know that under the refugee convention a person must be in fear of persecution in the country to which they believe that they could be returned, and that they would apply for refugee status in a third country.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration, Integration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that they were still within Sri Lanka, in that circumstance where would they have made such an application?

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is hypothetical. As I have explained to the honourable gentleman opposite, if he wants to look carefully at the refugee convention, he would find that it would be in a third country where a person would normally or ordinarily apply for refugee status. If he is making reference, for example, to the group of 83 Sri Lankans who were effectively picked up in the Indian Ocean, the reality is that all of those people were transmitted through a third country, some of them through more than one country, before their boat journey from Indonesia purportedly to some part of Australia.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration, Integration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am specifically referring to the statements made publicly by the minister—I presume without reference to the media unit—that those individuals could have applied for asylum while within Sri Lanka. I am simply asking how they would have done that.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have answered the question.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration, Integration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I suspect through that avoiding tactic—indeed you have. Minister, if I can refer you please to the trade skills training visa and ask first of all in the forward appropriations how much revenue has the government budgeted to receive from the trade skills training visa?

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take the question on notice.

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

For my clarification is the member for Watson going to pose each individual question or is he going to pose a number of questions at once?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration, Integration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was going to do them one at a time. Otherwise answers such as, ‘I will take them on notice,’ provide sufficient barriers and I would hate to be wasting your time and rendering questions redundant. I would ask the minister how many people are on trade skills training visas?

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My recollection is that it is not many. I think it is less than 10 but I will again provide the exact details to the honourable member.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration, Integration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When criticism was made of that apprenticeship visa the previous minister stated that Labor was out of touch with regional Australia in criticising the visa and by calling for its abolition. Given that there are only 10 people currently holding the visa, exactly how in touch with the needs of regional Australia is the government in feeling that it is a priority need for immigration?

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, firstly the honourable member has premised his question on that which has not been confirmed, and I have said to him that I will confirm the numbers. The number of visas, though—this is now theoretical on the basis that I will confirm the numbers—that are issued in a particular class does not necessarily mean that there is not a need. There could be 100 visas issued for which there is a need in 100 cases. There could be 10 visas issued for which there is a need in 10 cases. There could be a thousand visas issued for which there is a need in a thousand cases but I will provide the honourable member with the actual numbers of how many such visas have been issued.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration, Integration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer the minister to the expenditure on the monitoring of the 457 visa program and ask whether the budget measures which have been put in place are likely to alleviate the concerns from the US Department of State which have been addressed today?

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I can say respectfully, in relation to the report of the US state department, their criticism is misplaced. This is a report which the honourable gentleman opposite will know arises out of a longer term concern of the United States in relation to trafficking in persons and that largely arises out of trafficking in relation to things such as so-called sexual slavery and sexual servitude and the like. Those same concerns, in my view, are not applicable to the 457 visa program. However, as the honourable gentleman will also know, the government is moving to place some greater sanctions in relation to any sponsor who seeks to abuse the 457 program. To date, the basic sanction against abuse of the program is the removal of the privilege of being able to use that program either for a temporary period of time or for a longer period of time.

What the government proposes, and this was announced some time ago, is that we will put in place a regime of sanctions, including financial penalties, against sponsors or employers, or others, indeed, who abuse that program. As I said, I reject the one line—or two lines; I stand to be corrected—in what was an otherwise glowing report from the US state department. I am sure the honourable member will concede that the report was very supportive of Australia overall. I am sure he will also concede that Australia’s tier 1 ranking under that report indicates that, overall, the US state department not only has no real concerns about Australia but also regards Australia as one of those countries that has an exemplary program so far as these issues are concerned. So I think that comment—to the extent that it was made, in two lines—was misplaced. But even if the honourable gentleman wants, for the sake of argument, to suggest it was not misplaced, the measures that the government is putting in place would deal with those issues anyway.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration, Integration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the specific objections from the US state department was the issue of debt bondage. And one of the concerns which has been raised over the 457 visas is to do with examples such as that of somebody who made a $20,000 payment to effectively purchase the right to a $42,000 job and found themselves in debt that massively undercut the salary they ended up receiving. When those things occur, has there been a breach of the visa?

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable gentleman will remember the changes which the previous minister made in relation to what matters were legitimate ones for payment. That deals with the issue which he has raised. The further measures which the government intends to introduce will also deal with abuse more generally.

The greater difficulty—and I would be interested in any advice the honourable gentleman might have in relation to this—is where a payment is made to an overseas agent or organisation entirely outside the jurisdiction of Australia. Take, for example, country X, which has its own sovereign entitlements. If a person is recruited in country X and makes a payment—whether for $5,000 or $10,000—towards a labour recruiter, then that activity in country X, being sovereign to that country, is outside any jurisdiction that we in Australia have. What we have sought to do is to make it clear that any payments made in Australia are within a band of what could be regarded as acceptable, and to put in place the further matters which I foreshadowed in terms of the penalties that might apply to employers. But if the honourable gentleman has any suggestions as to how we could put in place a regime which would have effect contrary to the sovereignty of another country within that country, then my door is open to any suggestion he might make.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration, Integration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The issue which was just described by the minister surely is precisely an example of debt bondage. The difficulties internationally go to the monitoring of and enforcement against debt bondage. If what the minister just described is legally permissible under the 457 visa program—perhaps because of extraterritorial difficulties, but notwithstanding those—doesn’t that go directly to the debt bondage concerns of possible abuse of the program contained within the US report?

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, that is not the case, and the honourable gentleman is trying to slide around the issue by saying, ‘Let’s just leave aside any extraterritorial issues,’ or ‘Let’s not address the sovereignty of another nation in this regard.’ As I said before, we in Australia have in place arrangements and have foreshadowed some further legislative changes which deal directly with the issue. The suggestion, for example, of a $20,000 payment to an agency or organisation in Australia has already been covered by the changes which the previous minister put in place. Other penalties which will apply in relation to the changes, which I have foreshadowed, will further address the issue.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration, Integration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under section 51 of the Australian Constitution, does the federal government have extraterritorial power with respect to its legislation?

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable gentleman is asking for a legal opinion and, whilst I am a lawyer, I will defer to those whose expertise it is to provide legal opinion on that. The honourable gentleman knows the various parts of section 51 of the Constitution but if he is suggesting, for example, that we could pass laws in Australia which would somehow have an effect upon individuals operating in a separate sovereign country then that goes beyond what section 51 of the Constitution provides.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration, Integration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure the minister knows full well that we can set whatever conditions we want for the granting of an Australian visa, whether those conditions go to behaviour overseas or behaviour in Australia. If we were not able to do that, we would not be able to recognise the marriage laws of other countries in providing spouse visas, because how could we look at a marriage which was legally registered in a different country? The way we are able to do that, clearly, is that we allow our visa conditions to take into account behaviour that has been conducted overseas. Evidence can always be far more difficult to gather, but I put to the minister again: is it not a perfect example that the minister described earlier of people being in a situation of debt bondage, whether that debt has been incurred overseas or in Australia? Isn’t the capacity for debt bondage exactly the same, and isn’t the only difficulty for the Australian government, if it has the will, the gathering of evidence? Surely, Australia has a complete right to determine whether or not it will issue a visa.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That matter has already been covered in the matters which the previous minister gazetted.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration, Integration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has now provided two completely contradictory positions: firstly, what the minister has already gazetted, yet he said that that only applied to payments made in Australia. I have just asked a question about payments made overseas, where Australia does have the right, if it chooses to take those payments into account, to refuse the granting of a visa. Is the minister saying that, if there is a debt bondage situation created overseas, that is now grounds to refuse an Australian 457 visa?

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer the honourable gentleman to the matters which have been gazetted. He can read them for himself. I was speaking earlier in relation to the matter which the honourable member raised—that is, the gathering of evidence and the ability to prove or disprove whether or not something happened overseas—and the difficulty in gathering that evidence, which is proved right or wrong. It is easy to make allegations one way or the other but, in terms of actually proving it, it is an entirely different matter.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration, Integration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If we decided to not make laws based on evidence being difficult to prove, this parliament would have much less work to do. The minister would know full well that this exact principle I am referring to is the cornerstone behind the use of extraterritorial power in relation to parliament making it unlawful in Australia for people to be involved in child sex crimes overseas. When there is the will to actually look, no matter how difficult the evidence may be to gather, the capacity is there to do it. My question to the minister is: is it an abuse of the 457 visa for someone to be paid $42,000 to perform work, when everybody in that same region of Australia is being paid $80,000?

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I come to that, can I go back to the previous comment of the honourable member opposite, because he is seeking to twist what I said. I refer him once again to what has already been gazetted. He should not suggest that what has been gazetted is something other than what indeed has been gazetted. Clearly, he full well knows what has been gazetted. I come to the point. The honourable member is aware of the way in which the minimum threshold so far as salary is concerned operates. It operates in a way in which it was set effectively at above the market rate so far as salaries across the board are concerned. It was set at that level above the market rate in order to be a balance against full labour market testing in relation to every position or every job. But if one looks at the average salary that is being paid under 457 visas in Australia, one sees, as is my recollection, that it is of the order of $70,000 or $80,000.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration, Integration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question—and I do not want to state it in identical terms; I want to pretend that the conversation is going somewhere—is this: is the visa breached if every Australian in an area is earning $80,000 and a visa holder arrives who is earning $42,000? Is there a breach of the visa?

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable gentleman also knows the answer to that: it relates to whether it is the $42,000 or whether there is an industrial instrument in place in relation to that job in that occupation. If that industrial instrument is in place and it is higher, then that is the provision which applies.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration, Integration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source