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

I call the honourable member for Gellibrand, but I do not think there is anyone here to listen.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is pretty difficult to ask the questions of the government that need to be answered in this portfolio without the minister even being here. I see the junior minister has decided to turn up—maybe just to fill in a little bit of time—but obviously Minister Abbott is not prepared to be here.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that the best you’ve got?

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a more important reason than actually coming here and answering questions about the health portfolio?

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

If I could interrupt, I would say that I think the government needs to get its act together, because this happened twice yesterday. When the estimates are on, ministers or junior ministers who are coming to the chamber should be ready, because they do not know when this is going to finish. The next one should be ready immediately.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I could not agree more. Obviously this is a very important part of the estimates process, being able to ask the ministers questions about their portfolios, and it is very frustrating for us that the process is treated with some contempt. I do hope that the Minister for Ageing is going to be able to answer questions on behalf of the Minister for Health and Ageing, and I am sure that some of my colleagues who will be coming in the later part of this session will also want to ask particular questions about the ageing portfolio.

Minister, on the first bunch of questions I wonder whether you could give us more detail about the dental program that has been announced. The minister has already conceded, both at a conference to the AMA and also in parliament yesterday, that the chronic disease scheme that has been in place for the last three years for dentists—and this is a quote from the minister—‘was not working very well; let’s be honest about it. There were very few referrals and not much happening’. Given that the government has announced in this budget nearly $400 million to go into a dental scheme, and the Senate estimates process has revealed that the government does not know how high or low the rebates will be, what out-of-pocket costs will be—I can go through these slowly for you, Minister, because I am hoping for answers on this range of four or five issues—whether the referral process will be reformed, and whether or not dentures will be included as part of this process. I think that I might hear your answers on those issues first, Minister, because it is of most pressing concern to us whether or not this scheme is going to have the slightest effect. If you can give me some information about that, I would be grateful.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was my intention, representing the Minister for Health and Ageing here in the Main Committee, for opposition members to put their comments, questions or statements that they wish to make and then I would respond to them all at the end. If they have any further questions after that, of course I am happy to take those as well. But I am not going to have an exchange as suggested by the member for Gellibrand. I would much prefer to go through—

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s how the process works.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Actually I have done this process before too, thank you. That is how I did it last time and that is how I am going to do it this time.

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

It is the minister’s prerogative to decide to do that.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So basically it means that the minister does not have an answer on any of these questions.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not what I said. I am facilitating the process—

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a consideration in detail process. It is not up to the minister to tell us how long we can or cannot speak for—

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

The minister can decide to answer either immediately or at the end.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will ask our range of questions. I am going to ask you each time to answer them. If the minister wants to stand up each time and say that he is not going to answer them that is entirely up to the minister. The next range of questions—that, obviously, the minister is also not going to answer in any way—go to the dental package. The minister would no doubt be aware that in the announcement of the dental package it was estimated that 200,000 people would be able to be covered by this—a staggering figure given that only a handful of people have been covered to date by the existing program and given that the government does not know and has not yet been prepared to tell us what the rebates will be, what the out-of-pocket costs will be or whether or not the referral process will be reformed. I would like the minister to advise how that figure of 200,000 was worked out. What estimate is it based on, given that there is no estimation of what the rebates will be and there is no information as yet of what procedures are actually going to be covered? Minister, if you could tell me how that figure of 200,000 people was achieved I would be grateful.

Obviously, the minister is not prepared to answer these questions. I am absolutely sure that the reason that this decision has been taken is that there are not any answers. The minister, after the questions have been asked, will provide some sort of excuse for an answer but does not want to have any follow-up. He does not want the parliamentary process to actually work in the way that it is intended to work. He does not want to provide any information, obviously making a joke of the parliament and this process. It is very frustrating for the opposition and does not achieve anything for the government. It shows that they are not prepared to engage.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’re just wasting your time.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not think it is up to the minister to tell me what I can use this time for.

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

I was not listening to the minister, member for Gellibrand; I was asking for your questions.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Given that I am being provided with the time to do this, I understand that I am able to make any comments and ask any questions that I might wish to during this time. One comment that I am going to continue to make will be about the fact that it is apparent that the minister is not going to, in any way, provide any decent information to us about these issues.

Minister, I would like you to also answer some questions about the existing chronic disease program that the government has now committed several hundred million extra dollars to. It is my understanding that only 68 Tasmanians across the entire three-year period of the program have actually been able to access any benefit from this program. I would like the minister to confirm whether that is in fact true. Similarly, I would like to know whether or not it is true that only 657 Queenslanders across the entire three-year period have used this program. Obviously, the minister would be aware that there are currently 650,000 people on the public dental waiting lists and, given these extraordinarily low numbers, I ask again: how is it that the government reached an estimate of an anticipated 200,000 people using this same program in the coming three years? Those questions are the main questions in relation to the dental program and the minister might like to answer them in a group.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have indicated how I intend—

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister is obviously not going to answer those questions for us. It is going to be a very frustrating and pointless 50 minutes, I imagine, if this is the way we are going to go. Perhaps it means that the minister just does not have these answers. The vast array of people here from the department will no doubt provide the same information that has already been provided to Senate estimates. If that is the case, the processes for Senate estimates and consideration in detail, where the ministers answer, really do not fulfil the separate roles that they are supposed to. In any case, I hope that the departmental advisers who are here are able to provide a little more information.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are wasting your time. Ask your questions.

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

Minister, I will manage the Main Committee.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also ask the minister whether he will deal with the issue of type 2 diabetes. He may or may not be aware that the prevalence of type 2 diabetes has doubled in the period of time that the government has been in office. Obviously, this is a modern disease and its growth is exponentially increasing. The government did announce a diabetes initiative as part of the budget package, and I am wondering whether the minister can provide some information about the copayment of $50 which is required for people to participate in the diabetes related weight loss programs. My particular interest in this is that we know the prevalence is particularly high in Indigenous communities. If the minister has any intention of answering the question, it is important that he actually knows what the question is, so I will wait for him to be in a position to hear it.

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

I think there are many ears in the room, Member for Gellibrand.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, but it is the minister’s ears that I am hoping to have listening.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I’m all ears.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As you know, the copayment is $50 for people who have diabetes who want to participate in this program. Our particular concern about the copayment is our knowledge that there is an especially high incidence in the Indigenous communities. We are concerned that, for some members of those communities, the $50 will be a disincentive to participate in the program. I am wondering whether the minister will be able to tell me whether any assessments are made on who will be able to participate, whether the payment will have an impact and whether it will be a disincentive for people to participate in this program. Is the minister prepared to answer that question? He is still not prepared to, but I am hoping that there will be answers to these questions as I go on.

Minister, I have a particular question about the listing on the PBS of Strattera. The budget papers make clear that around $100 million is going to be added to the PBS and the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme between 2007-08 and 2010-11. I am wondering whether the minister can advise if the government has given any reconsideration to this listing or reviewed it in any way, given the growing community concerns that there have been about the side effects of this product. Obviously it is an issue which is of great concern to the many people who have been affected. I am wondering if the government can give me some advice on whether any other mechanism has been put in place to deal with this.

Minister, further on the PBS issues, I am also wondering whether you can give us any information about ADHD drugs, which are also costing a significant amount of money through the PBS. Can you give us an update on the NHMRC guidelines committee that has been established? The minister may or not be aware of the process that has been put in place. There was quite a—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Pyne interjecting

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So the minister would be aware that the guidelines were withdrawn two years ago. It has been a very slow process to get a new committee established. We know that the government believes that that committee can do this work, but it is obviously a slow process. Can the minister tell me how that process is going, any expected time, and if any other variations to the process have been made, given the controversy over the conflict of interest of, I think, the chair of that committee? Perhaps the minister might also consider whether he is prepared to advise us of the members of that committee, which to date have not been made publicly available. Those are the questions in relation to the PBS.

Minister, I am also wondering whether you can answer some questions in relation to the Ageing portfolio. You would be aware that my colleague in the other place has been asking questions as well. You were reported in, I think, Monday’s West Australian as being assured by the industry in Western Australia that there was a glut of aged-care places. But you would no doubt be aware that your own department assesses that they are something in the order of 500 beds short in Western Australia. Minister, I am wondering whether you can give us an update on the department’s and the government’s assessment of the bed shortages in each state. We estimate that they are of a high order. Whenever we have asked these questions in the past, the government has always talked about aged-care places as a whole. We of course acknowledge the care that is provided through community care packages. But, as the Minister for Ageing would be well aware, they cover entirely different types of needs and people with different care needs. If the minister could provide us with an update—particularly in relation to Western Australia, since he is in the paper asserting that there is a glut—that would be useful. We would also appreciate an update, Minister, if you have one, on the status of aged-care beds around the country. State by state would be preferable. I have some further questions, but I am going to allow my colleagues to ask a couple. The minister, unfortunately, has not seen fit to answer any of the questions along the way, but we are hoping he might.

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

I want to raise with the minister the announcement in the appropriations for health that three new MRI licences are to be allocated. I do not know whether the minister at the table is aware of this, but I know that Minister Abbott is aware that we have been lobbying for five years to get an MRI licence allocation at Wollongong Hospital. I am obviously very keen to know whether the three new licences are already identified to go to particular places. If not, if there is going to be a process by which a new round of allocations will occur, will it go on existing lists and requests or will a new round of requests and indications of interest be required? I would like the minister to jump up and assure me that Wollongong will get one, but I suspect that that is probably a bit of a premature expectation. At least if we knew what the process will be and what the intentions are for those three licences that would be useful to my community. It would be especially useful for the specialist base in Wollongong, because it is a major referral hospital and people from there constantly ring me to find out when they can get a licence for the hospital base machine for their patients. It is not so much your standard MRI for people who have sporting injuries and so forth. It is the major oncology and radiology referral hospital, so those specialists practising in that town centre really want to be able to send their patients to the Wollongong facility for an MRI scan, rather than, as some of them are doing, admitting them overnight to hospital in order to get a bulk-billed scan done as an in-patient. We are particularly keen to know what is happening with those three announced licences.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to add something further in that line. In relation to the MRIs we are particularly keen to know, as the member for Cunningham has indicated, if any decision or preliminary identification of sites has been made for those additional three licences. The minister may be aware that Launceston General Hospital have also been arguing for a long time that they should have an MRI licence. It is a similar sort of situation to the one described by the member for Cunningham, where there is a major hospital that does not have access to this facility.

I have also recently been to Redcliffe Hospital, where they are developing an oncology specialisation as well. One of the things that is stopping that is the absence of an MRI machine licence. People have to travel fairly long distances from the north of Brisbane into town to access those services. Again, all three of these places seem like places that should be given consideration by the government, but we have not had any information from them. I know that many people in those local communities are very interested to know what the government’s plans are. Also, Minister, if decisions have not been made, people want to know the expected time for decisions to be made on those licences.

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

Along those lines, Minister, I wonder if you could get some information for me on the licensing of the PET scanning machine in the Hunter. There have been numerous applications made for that machine to be licensed. At the moment it is operating well under capacity because the government refuses to allocate a licence. It is a very large area, covering an enormous number of people in the Hunter and New England, yet the government constantly refuses to license a machine. Could you please look into that for me and provide us with information.

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

The other issue that I would like to ask the minister to consider in terms of MRI licence allocations is one that has been raised with me by other providers in my area. I am interested to know if the government has done or intends to do any analysis of the competitive effects of licence allocations in regions. Obviously I am indicating the anticompetitive effects that happen with this very limited licence allocation process. Whilst I understand the cost implications for governments of giving these things out willy-nilly, it has been raised with me by other scanning providers that the ability to offer MRI scanning has a big impact on your ability to attract staff. People want to be able to access as part of their professional development those diagnostic services, so the one provider who has the licence has an extraordinary advantage over other providers in the area in terms of business competitiveness. I think that is a genuine concern.

I do not know that that is something that would change the allocations policy, but I would certainly encourage the government and the minister to have a look, at this point in the process of allocating licences, at any sort of anticompetitive effects it may be having on other providers in the area. It is clearly something that is being raised with members of parliament. I would suggest that serious concerns are increasing as this becomes not unusual service but in fact a standard component of the range of services that radiology looks to provide in the local area.

Second, I understand that the most recent allocation of licences had a requirement for a bulk-billing component. However, the previously allocated licences do not. The dilemma that we have with licence allocation in Wollongong is that the provider only bulk-bills particular types of oncology patients. It does not bulk-bill, for example, healthcare cardholders in general. This is creating a great deal of distress, particularly amongst pensioners and family people. Indeed, only this week I saw a lady whose daughter had to have a scan once every two weeks as part of  the treatment she was receiving for a cancer related disease, but she did not meet the very limited guidelines this provider has for bulk-billing. That is causing major issues. So I ask whether the guidelines for the allocations have been changed for new licences, whether the requirement to bulk-bill will be maintained for, at least, healthcare cardholders, and whether there is any capacity to review the existing licence holders who are not meeting those requirements.

Again, I would argue that part of the problem is the lack of competition for those providers. Particularly in an area like mine, patients have to get into Sydney—or travel down to Nowra, as the member for Gilmore knows—to get a bulk-billed service. I ask whether there is a view that there should be a review of some of that in-built anticompetitive bad pricing behaviour that was there in the early rounds—which was unsurprising, with a new program and a rollout. Is there the capacity to go back and have a look at those charging practices of the existing licence holders?

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

I would like to raise the issue of workforce shortage and the scheme that the government brought in a couple of budgets ago to encourage doctors to move to outer metropolitan areas. I understand that there has been a cut in funding to that scheme. I would like to ask the minister if he could go back and review the RRAMA classification scheme and the strategies that are in place to address workforce shortage issues. My area is classified as an area of workforce shortage, but I would like the government to make a lot clearer the method that they use for classifying those areas where there is not a doctor that is taking new patients and where there is a very elderly population. I would also like the minister to come back with information that will clarify for me and the people that I represent in this parliament why, in an area that is so close to inner Newcastle and Sydney, people are unable to see a doctor. I would like that information even for the benefit of my staff, who have to pick up people from their homes and drive them some 10 kilometres to see a doctor that will bulk-bill or even see new patients. I would also like the minister to come back to me and tell me what sorts of items are in this budget that are going to address that chronic workforce shortage.

On another issue, I notice that in the budget there is a line item for breastfeeding education support. The minister may or may not be aware—or may or may not be listening to what I am saying—that there is a line item for this going over the next five years. I would like details of what that line item refers to, what the government’s actual strategy will be in relation to breastfeeding, who it is contacting and who it is using as its resource. I understand that the government is removing questions in relation to breastfeeding from the national survey that is conducted by the Department of Health and Ageing and I would like to ask how this line item, which seems to indicate that the government is making some sort of commitment to breastfeeding, lines up with the fact that it is no longer asking questions about it. That is another question that I would like the minister to provide me with an answer to.

The next issue relates a little to one that the shadow minister raised earlier, and that is aged-care beds and the shortage of aged-care beds within the Shortland electorate. There is a chronic aged-care bed shortage. The Central Coast, I believe, has a shortage of just under 600, and in the Hunter it is just under 400. I would like the minister to come back to me with up-to-date figures on what those bed shortages are. In addition to that, I would like the minister to provide me with details of the actual bed shortage number in relation to operational beds, because those figures are calculated once again on bed licences that are issued and do not show the number of beds that have been approved but are non-existent—phantom beds, in other words. I would like to be able to very clearly identify in my mind the beds that are operational and those that are just phantom beds—those that are out there on paper but are non-existent and not available to constituents in the Shortland electorate.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I have one last question, which I am sure you will not need the advice of the department on. I understand that the minister recently made some comments and, after acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which he was speaking, also decided that he should acknowledge the traditional owners of the Liberal Party, the Pharmacy Guild. I was wondering if the minister might be able to tell us what exactly that means, and is there anything in the budget that we should be looking for that is an indicator of that commitment?

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wanted to ask some questions about respite care and aged care. In my electorate of Boothby 18 per cent of the population are over 65, based on the 2001 census. I know that the Minister for Ageing has a similar age profile in his electorate—the Marion Central statistical local area is still recognised as an area of need or an area requiring additional places. One of the things I hear from constituents is a need for respite care when you have elderly carers in the family. Also, in the area of community aged care, we now see very much a preference for people, if they wish, to stay in their own homes as long as possible. I would be interested to hear if there is any update on respite care and community aged care.

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

Are there any other questions before the minister sums up?

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Roxon interjecting

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

Look, we are not going to have this stupid argument because the minister has said that he will reply at the end. If the member for Gellibrand has any more questions—

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have asked our questions and the minister is of course entitled to answer them—

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

Have you finished?

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

but there is nothing in the standing orders that prevents us from seeking the call after the minister has finished answering the questions. He may or may not answer them adequately, and if there is time—

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

Have you finished your questions?

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have finished our questions for now, and I will not remove or reserve—

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

Thank you. The member for Boothby has the call.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am going to ask more questions—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I’m happy for you to do so.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He’s not intending to answer any of ours. Maybe he’ll answer yours.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have now had accreditation and certification in aged care for a number of years. I am interested to hear from the minister about the impact of the accreditation process on improving standards and quality of care in aged-care places.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the opposition for their detailed set of questions and I also thank the member for Boothby from the government side. I had always intended, as I did last year in this process in the Main Committee, to listen to all of the questions from the members who chose to ask the government questions in the consideration in detail stage of the appropriation bills. My intention was to listen to all of those questions or comments, to sum them up as best I could, and to give answers as best I could in this next part of the process. There was never any intention on my part to obfuscate or avoid answering questions—in fact, quite the opposite. It was always my intention to carry out exactly the same system that ministers usually adopt in this process, which is to hear all the comments and questions and then to try and give a comprehensive answer at the end of the process. I note that the member for Hindmarsh has entered the chamber. It seems that he would like to make a comment or ask a question, so I am happy to sit down briefly, if he would like. He can have a go and then I will try and answer his questions at the end.

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

I would like to ask the minister a question about aged-care beds. Recently in the 2005 stocktake, if you want to call it a stocktake, of aged-care beds in the south and western regions of Adelaide there was an undersupply of 287 aged-care beds as at 2005. That undersupply had increased to 315 beds by June 2006. That was approximately a 10 per cent increase in unmet demand. I was wondering what the June 2007 stocktake means for Adelaide’s western and south-western suburbs where there was unmet demand. Perhaps you could give me a figure of what it currently is and whether the supply will meet the demand perhaps by June this year, next year or the year after. When will the demand be met? Will there be another 10 per cent blow-out in undersupply by this June? Can the Australian public expect the unmet demand again to be in the vicinity of the 350 mark, as has been the case for a number of years now when the stocktake is done?

Can the government continue to expect people to move to where the beds are? That is one of the big issues. When people come to see me in my electorate, they tell me about their loved ones, usually their mums or dads, needing a nursing home bed. Usually, they are either in respite or waiting in a public hospital. People may say to me that they have found a nursing home for their mother or father but it is up in Gawler or Elizabeth or down south in Christies, which makes it very difficult for some of these people who are themselves elderly, in their late 60s and 70s, to travel, perhaps every day, to see their loved ones. Even though there may be beds within the vicinity of metropolitan Adelaide, they are some distance away from the western and southern suburbs and that creates a problem for these people. How will we meet the unmet demand for people who need beds to stay within their communities?

The other question I have is: can the minister tell us how many people are in beds in public hospitals waiting for beds in nursing homes in South Australia at any given time—perhaps a snapshot over 12 months? I also want to know about those waiting in respite care for nursing home beds, because that is the other issue. There are many people who come and see me in my electorate whose parents are either in a public hospital or even in a respite bed, but when they are due to come out of the respite bed in two, three or four weeks time there is nowhere for them. Again, it is the same issue about having people close to their communities. I suppose the question is: will that undersupply be met, when and how will it be met, and are there any dates for those targets to be met? If we could get those figures for Shortland in New South Wales, the Hunter and the Central Coast as well. I am sure the staff could get those figures for the member for Shortland.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to be representing the Minister for Health and Ageing today in the consideration in detail of the appropriation bills. The members for Gellibrand, Cunningham, Shortland, Boothby and Hindmarsh have been keen participants in this process and have asked me a series of detailed questions. Some of those are obviously within the portfolio of health, and I am less familiar with those than I am with the portfolio of ageing, but I will with the support and help of the department attempt to respond to these as best I can and hopefully to the satisfaction of the House.

The member for Gellibrand asked about a number of specific issues. I will deal with each one of those. Firstly, she raised the issue of dental health and dental treatment. It is an area that has been something of a bugbear in public policy for some time. Obviously dental health is a primary responsibility of the states. When Labor were in power all those years ago, they had a specific program that had targets to be met; those targets were met and the program came to an end. Since that time, the Commonwealth has expected the states to fulfil their responsibilities for the dental health of their electors, and in this budget we are—

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tell us how your budget is going to work.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will answer the questions in the way that I choose to answer them—

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Roxon interjecting

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in exactly the same way that you asked the questions in the way that you chose to ask them. You were aggressive, antagonistic and rude.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Roxon interjecting

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not intend to be any of those things.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Try and answer the questions.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I intend to answer the questions courteously and methodically, and that is what I am going to do. I have about 12 minutes to answer those questions and I would have thought that you would prefer that I answer the questions rather than engage with the trivial and petty interjections across the chamber.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Roxon interjecting

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a matter for you. I can talk about your interjections until the cows come home, if you choose, but I prefer to deal with the questions you asked me. Is that what you want me to do?

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Try and answer them.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, then, I will do it. In this budget we did put a very good dental health program on the table for the future. People with chronic conditions and complex care needs often do have poor oral health, which can adversely affect their medical condition or their general health. In the budget, the government committed $377.6 million over four years to make it easier for these people to access dental services in the private sector when they need treatment or they receive preventative care. Under the new Medicare arrangements, eligible patients will be able to claim Medicare benefits for a diagnostic dental consultation as well as benefits for a range of dental treatments up to a maximum of $2,000 each calendar year.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.

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

Order!

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is estimated that approximately 200,000 people will benefit from these new Medicare items.

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

Order! I ask the minister to resume his seat.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wondered if the minister might take a question and, rather than reading the budget paper back to us, be prepared to actually answer the questions asking for more detail that have been put to him.

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

Is the honourable minister prepared to take a question?

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not prepared to give way, no. I would like to actually—

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

There is a process for this within this second chamber. I ask the minister whether he will take a question. You prefer not to take a question?

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not until the end of my contribution.

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

Thank you. The honourable minister.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I make the point that the member for Gellibrand has asked many questions and I am trying to answer them. I am trying to give her the position generally on dental health and answer her specific questions as well. I was saying that an estimated 200,000 people will benefit from these new Medicare items, and they will commence on 1 November 2007. The budget significantly expands on the existing Medicare dental items, introduced in 2004, for people with chronic and complex conditions. The intention is to cover a broad range of areas. The member for Gellibrand asked about specific areas such as assessments, fillings, extractions and dentures. The member for Gellibrand specifically asked about whether dentures would be covered, and the answer is that that is the intention.

The implementation arrangements are currently being discussed with the dental profession. The government is working closely with the Australian Dental Association on the issue of rebate and out-of-pocket expenses. My understanding is that the Dental Association have been very pleased with this announcement by the government and it went much further than they had initially expected.

I was also asked about the uptake of existing dental items so far. That was a legitimate question from the member for Gellibrand. I think that the point the member for Gellibrand made about a low uptake of existing dental items is exactly the reason why the government has expanded this area of Medicare items. It is why we are addressing the issue. We recognised that there was an issue that needed to be looked at, and that is exactly why this item is in the budget. We are responding to the needs of the community, especially people with chronic health conditions. Rather than criticising us for doing so, I would have thought the Labor Party should congratulate the government on taking this excellent step.

The member for Gellibrand asked a specific question about type 2 diabetes. The answer to that question is that the copayment for type 2 diabetes has been set at $50 and the government will consider waiving the copayment for concession card holders when designing the administrative detail of the scheme in the near future. When that is done, the member for Gellibrand will no doubt be informed of it, as she is in the normal course of events.

I was also asked a question about Strattera and the PBS. I have to say that this is specifically an area for the Minister for Health and Ageing. I have sought advice from the department on the answer to the member for Gellibrand’s question and I have been told that all the appropriate staff in that area are in committee and unable to answer that question specifically today. I will take it on notice and make sure that an answer is provided to the member for Gellibrand in a very short space of time, which I think should be today or tomorrow, as soon as the appropriate staff are available.

The member for Gellibrand and the member for Shortland asked about ADHD. This is an area that has been of great interest to me. When I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing, I had something to say about issues to do with ADHD, Ritalin and drug prescription, specifically to infants and young people, and I initiated a review of the guidelines. When I was the parliamentary secretary to the minister for health we asked the Royal Australasian College of Physicians to conduct a review of the guidelines. The member for Gellibrand is quite right: they were rescinded in December 2005. It is an area that is of great interest, I think, to the mums and dads and grandparents of Australia, who are being bombarded with information that the uptake of these prescription drugs is growing exponentially.

When I was the parliamentary secretary to the minister for health and inquired about this area, I was told that some of the statistics indicated dramatic take-up of some of these prescription drugs because of the fact that they had not previously been on the PBS, and therefore, when they did come onto the PBS, there was a large movement from other drugs across to, for example, Ritalin. It did not mean necessarily there was a massive increase in the prescribing of ADHD drugs generally, but it meant that there was a movement across to particular drugs which were now much cheaper for the mums and dads who were purchasing them.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And the committee?

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am getting to the committee. The member for Gellibrand is champing at the bit to suggest that I am not answering the questions. I am trying to answer them as specifically as possible. The member for Gellibrand asked about the committee of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians that was conducting this review. It is true that Dr Daryl Efron was originally appointed by the RACP to chair the working party overseeing the revision. Dr Efron stepped down from that position. The new chair, as advised by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, will be Associate Professor David Forbes. Associate Professor Forbes is a highly regarded paediatrician. He is very familiar with the NHMRC guideline review process. His areas of clinical practice and research are not associated with ADHD in any way. He has declared he has no pecuniary or professional interest in companies involved in the development or marketing of drugs and medicinal preparations.

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

And the rest of the committee?

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not at liberty at this stage to advise on the rest of the committee. That really is a matter for the Minister for Health and Ageing to announce as he chooses to do so, or the parliamentary secretary for health. I am sure that that will be done in the fullness of time and when that is appropriate to do so.

I am mindful of the time, so I will try to answer some of these other questions. The member for Shortland asked me about positron emission tomography machines—PET machines. I am advised that the minister for health is currently awaiting advice from the Medical Services Advisory Committee on new clinical applications for PET machines and the department is also preparing advice for the minister regarding funding for PET machines. I am sure that all of the applications for PET machines and MRI licences will be considered appropriately. I could not, as you would imagine, make a commitment to provide a PET machine in the Hunter, no sooner could I do so for an MRI licence in Wollongong. But I am sure that when those applications are appropriately made, they will be appropriately considered.

The good news, Member for Gellibrand, is that I do have an answer now on Strattera. The appropriate departmental people have been able to be found. Strattera has been fully evaluated recently by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and the TGA—the Therapeutic Goods Administration. The TGA and the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee carefully considered the safety and efficacy of Strattera in the treatment of ADHD and recommended its use. The TGA has required a boxed warning statement. I am sure the member for Gellibrand would be familiar with what that means. I used to be responsible for the TGA and it is obviously significant. A boxed warning statement will be included in the consumer information for Strattera alerting people to the potential for suicide issues. The TGA will monitor the safety of Strattera once it becomes available on the PBS on 1 July. Of course, we would welcome reports from prescribers of any concerns about side effects.

I really answered the question about MRI licences when I answered the question about the PET machines. The minister has not yet made a decision as to what process will be used to allocate the new MRI licences. I would like to comment on the Ageing portfolio, so some of the other questions on breastfeeding and workforce issues we will take on notice and get responses to the members who have asked those questions.

I would now like to turn to ageing, which is actually my portfolio, for a few minutes. I was asked specific questions and they generally revolved around so-called phantom beds or a shortage of beds. I can advise the House that, in the last 11 years, we have increased the number of allocated beds by 48 per cent, which is a massive increase. Our record on the number of beds being available is, quite frankly, exemplary. We now have 208,000—

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

Ms Hall interjecting

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did you want the answer to the question or not?

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

Yes.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Right, then why don’t you wait for it? There are 208,000 operational beds in Australia—operational places. When we came to office, the ratio of beds for each group of 1,000 people aged 70 and over was 93 under the previous government. By 2010, the ratio will be 113. That will be made up of 44 high-care beds, 44 low-care beds and 25 Community Aged Care Packages.

I note that the Labor Party has this obsession with ignoring Community Aged Care Packages and pretending that they are not aged-care places. Of course, I can understand why they do that. When they were in government there were only 4½ thousand community aged-care places. Now, by 2010, there will be 45,000 community aged-care places. We have increased the number tenfold. So I can understand why Labor is embarrassed about community aged-care places and therefore tries to pretend that they are not an alternative to aged care.

People vastly prefer to stay in their own homes and age in their own homes if they have that option available to them. That is why we have doubled the funding for home and community care places across Australia and why we have increased the number of community aged-care packages tenfold in the last 11 years. It gives people the opportunity to stay in their own homes for a much longer period of time, and it is obviously an important part of the government’s response to the ageing process. It does not surprise me that Labor is embarrassed about that, because we will have increased the spending on aged care since 1996 from a paltry $3.1 billion to $10.1 billion by 2010. Quite frankly, the government’s record on aged care should be embarrassing to the Labor Party.

We have increased the number of community care packages, which the member for Boothby asked me about, from 4,500 to 45,000. There are now 25 per 1,000 people aged 70 or over. The Prime Minister has a particular affection for respite care, and we ensure that respite is a significant part of any program that involves carers and others. When Labor was in power we were spending $18 million on respite care in 1996. By 2010 we will be spending $190 million on respite care. (Time expired)

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Proposed expenditure, $4,180,814,000.

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for taking the time to come to the Main Committee this morning. I want to ask some questions about Budget Paper No. 2. The first is about an issue on page 80 in respect of the Cole inquiry and possible criminal offences arising from that inquiry. I want to focus on not so much the issue of the possible criminal offences but whether the department will be conducting an investigation into what we would submit is clear evidence of flawed processes. I am not going to the integrity or honesty of any person in raising this issue, but clearly there appears to have been, just as a basic matter of administration, failure of communication in respect of the weapons for wheat issue.

Going back to as early as 1998, the Australian intelligence community had certainly been warning of the involvement of the trucking company Alia in paying kickbacks to the regime of Saddam Hussein. Indeed, Saddam Hussein’s family had interests in Alia. There had also been warnings by Bronte Moules, from the Australian Permanent Mission to the United Nations, regarding bribes generally as far back as 13 January 2000 and on other occasions. There had been cables from DFAT in Canberra mentioning the occurrence of irregularities generally in respect of the oil for food program. There had been specific warnings going back to Colonel Michael Kelly, who was based in Iraq at the time. He said in May 2004 in one of his emails:

Looks like the jig is up on AWB and the OFF scandal.

Subsequently, in July 2004 he told an Iraq task force meeting that AWB were up to their eyeballs in the illicit payments of the oil for food program, had cosy relationships with the Iraqi ministry and regime figures, and understood where the money was going.

I have a number of pages here documenting those warnings—in the order of 32. Albeit some of them are general warnings, others are very specific. As a matter of effective and efficient administration, we would think—and the public would expect—that the senior departmental administration would have called people in and asked them: ‘What did you know and when did you know it? Who did you communicate it to?’ Or ‘Why didn’t you communicate it?’ One would think the department would have been looking at some system to address what has been, from the point of view of basic administration, unquestionably a gross failure of effective communication.

I note by way of passing that the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee report on the detention issue in Iraq in August 2005 pointed to this characteristic within the department. It said that ineffective record keeping, unclear, haphazard reporting processes and poor communication networks meant that both departments—that is, DFAT and the Department of Defence—were unable to present a coherent, detailed and accurate account of the matters of concern to the committee. In its recommendations, the committee raised concerns about the communication and reporting processes within the departments for falling short of what is expected of a highly skilled and professional organisation.

With respect to the kickbacks issue, the AWB scandal, irrespective of issues of criminality, there are clearly further examples of failures of communication, transparency and accountability. We want to know what, if anything, is being done to find out what went wrong and what needs to be done to fix either the culture or the system of communication.

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whatever the opposition members want, I am happy to accommodate them with that. I am happy to answer their questions as they come, one by one. It might be a bit easier than trying to remember them all at the very end.

Because the government had information coming out of the Volcker process, in particular, that there were at least allegations of AWB Ltd having been involved in a kickbacks operation in Iraq—something that we profoundly disprove of—we decided to set up a commission of inquiry with the powers of a royal commission, which was called the Cole inquiry. This was established in late 2005 and had hearings through the early part of 2006. Commissioner Cole produced his report in November 2006—if memory serves me well. Commissioner Cole went through all of the documentation, cables and emails that my department and other relevant authorities had and, in some cases, he called people before the inquiry as witnesses and examined those people. Those people were also cross-examined by counsel representing AWB employees. The Labor Party had a close relationship with the counsel representing AWB employees. They spoke with them every day and kept in close touch with them, as they did with Caroline Overington.

This was all played out in a dramatic way during 2006. All sorts of allegations and claims were made. The honourable member refers to Colonel Kelly. Colonel Kelly’s testimony was contradicted by people from my department and from other departments. In the end, Commissioner Cole chose not to call Colonel Kelly because he thought the claims Colonel Kelly made—and recently more light has been shed on the basis of those claims—did not merit examination. I cannot speak for Commissioner Cole, but this view was taken presumably in the light of the fact that Colonel Kelly’s claims were contradicted by other witnesses and other evidence.

The Labor Party has come to its own conclusions. I appreciate that. The party political line here is that the Liberal Party and the National Party are guilty of all manner of crimes. My department, according to the honourable member, should be investigating fraud within the department. I have always said that the public servants in my department are good and honourable people; I do not have any evidence of their being corrupt. I do not have any basis for calling for an investigation into fraud in my department in relation to the AWB matter. More than that, Commissioner Cole produced a report and made his own findings and they happen to be at complete variance with the allegations made by the Labor Party. They were 180 degrees different.

In answer to the honourable member’s question, I would recommend to him, with the best will in the world, that he spend time reading the Cole report. It is several volumes; I appreciate that it would take a lot of time—but I would do that if I were him. He might find it interesting. Just making a few party political points like the ones he has made will not take him very far.

The department will receive $4.6 million over four years for the implementation of the government’s response to the Cole inquiry, and the resources will allow the department to carry out the enhanced responsibilities for the implementation of UN sanctions conferred upon the department by the government. The department intends to use these resources to enhance its capacity to support the incorporation of sanctions regimes into Australian law, administer and coordinate the implementation of sanctions regimes, develop systems to monitor and ensure compliance with Australian law on sanctions, undertake outreach in Australia and overseas to develop awareness of responsibilities for the observance of sanctions regimes, and develop online and hard-copy publications providing guidance on Australian requirements for the implementation of sanctions. Those resources are provided under a cross-portfolio measure, which was announced in the budget, led by the Attorney-General.

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I move on to an issue I should correct the record. At no stage have I accused any representative of the minister’s department of fraud. I prefaced my previous question by saying it was based distinctly on raising an issue not of integrity or honesty but simply of systems failures. The minister’s final response to the question started to go in that direction. I should indicate to the minister that I have read the report. I have put a number of questions on the Notice Paper as a result of having read the report and there will be more to come. They will focus specifically on the issue of systems failures: why information was received at certain levels and why it was not communicated up the chain. I would have thought from the process of administrative effectiveness that the minister would want to have known why that did not occur. Stepping perhaps beyond my brief in my next question, I thought it appropriate to place that on the record.

Our engagement in the Asia-Pacific region is an important issue for both sides of politics. I have a number of questions. Has the minister’s department considered placing a permanent representative with the United States Joint Interagency Task Force West? Have there been any discussions with the Federal Police, for instance, about placing a Federal Police officer with that agency? Both the Asia-Pacific Centre for Security Studies in Honolulu and the East-West Center would relish the opportunity to have Australian representatives on staff. Has consideration been given to that so that we can work more closely with the issues of governance capacity building in our region? Is there concern that it appears that East Timor is developing its future military intentions without participation or sufficient input from Australia? Again, without being judgemental from afar, there seems to be a lack of effectiveness in our relationships with the Solomons and Fiji. Has there been any review as to how we might develop a different mode of operating so that we could be more effective in our operations?

There is a reference in the budget papers on page 200 to the development of multilateral initiatives. Given the minister’s attempted canning of me a couple of days ago for suggesting that Australia should take an approach to multilateral issues, how does he justify that line item? Finally, in terms of disaster response, just what measures are we taking in respect to, for instance, the threat of bird flu? Are we assisting Indonesia to develop vaccines, both for chickens and people? What are we doing to plan for the evacuation of nationals? What are we doing to plan for the protection of first responders? Indeed, what are we doing to plan for a transit point to take evacuees prior to their return to Australia in order to check them for disease? In response to the Asian tsunami, has any analysis been undertaken by Australian authorities of the massive and substantial aid response—that is recognised—and how that could have been improved? They are issues that we would like to focus on. I appreciate that in the time available it may be difficult to respond to all of these questions, but perhaps the minister could do so at a subsequent time if he is able.

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for all his questions. We have until 11.40, so I will leave time for other members to raise issues they might want to raise. I will go through these things very quickly and no doubt inadequately. First of all, I will look at the questions about the AWB matter. The honourable member started his comments by asking whether the department will be conducting an investigation into fraud within the department. That really took me aback a bit. That is an allegation that people in my department were involved in fraud. I wrote down what the honourable member said. If that is what he means, there has been a royal commission into this matter. As I said, I would recommend he not just glance at it and listen to his leader’s fanciful allegations but read it.

As far as Australia working with the Americans in the Asia-Pacific region is concerned, I was in Honolulu a couple of weeks ago and our relationship there works as well as it has ever worked in modern history—since 1945. We have a very intimate relationship with the Americans working in South-East Asia in particular. Some of the great successes, for example, in the area of counterterrorism—obviously, because these are sensitive matters, without getting into any of the details—would not have been possible without the excellent cooperation between Australia and the United States. I often make this point to people, particularly people on the left, who say that they do not think we should be so close to the United States and that we are too close to the Bush regime and so on. If you want to deal with the issue of terrorism in South-East Asia, you need good, strong bilateral relations with countries like Indonesia and the Philippines and you need to be working with them. But you also need a close relationship with the Americans. You need to be able to influence American policy in South-East Asia. Bagging the Americans would probably somewhat reduce your influence in South-East Asia. I suspect that you would find that, should you win the election.

As far as East Timor goes, I thank the honourable member for asking this question. There will be an election in East Timor on 30 June. If I were the honourable member, I would watch the election process and not get into the game of reacting to every proposal that has been put forward by politicians in the context of an election in East Timor—though that might not necessarily be so true of Australia. Anyway, surely none of us would comment on that.

In the case of East Timor, the parliamentary elections—which, in a way, are the most important elections—are on 30 June. The leaders of the different political parties are putting forward various proposals, some of which are, frankly, ambit claims. For example, the proposal that East Timor would build up a defence force of 3,000 and have naval vessels with missiles on them is not part of the planning that is being done at the moment for the next three-year evolution of the East Timor defence force. This is a debate which needs to be understood in the context of the circumstances of East Timor at the moment. East Timor simply will not have, at any time in the immediate future, the resources to deal with that.

I would recommend that the honourable member have a good look at some of the activities of the governments of the Solomon Islands and Fiji. I would not want, if I were the honourable member, to put myself in the position where I was somehow a bit of an apologist for Manasseh Sogavare and Commodore Bainimarama. I am happy for the Labor Party to put itself in that position if it wants to, but it seems to me that that is not smart. To know all is to understand all. To know what these people have been doing, to know what their ambitions are, is to understand why the Australian government holds very strong views about them. It is fair enough, I suppose, for an opposition—I think I may have done some of the same things in opposition in the past, to be quite honest about this—to suggest that, ‘Gee, if we were the government, we would have better relations with Sogavare because we would be able to handle it so well. We wouldn’t have published an open letter in the newspaper.’ You would just do what he wanted you to do, would you? Is that the policy? If the opposition were the government and they did what Mr Sogavare wanted them to do then I do not think that would be in Australia’s interests.

You do learn in public life sometimes that you should stand up for what you think is right, and sometimes that involves a bit of an argument with someone. Just because you are having an argument with someone does not mean that that is a bad thing. Sometimes that is a good thing. RAMSI still exists. RAMSI still has integrity. RAMSI is still in place, and it would not be if we had not taken a strong stand in the way we have done. Sure, that has involved some arguments with the Solomon Islands. The opposition thinks that it is wrong to argue with them. The right policy, therefore, must be to go along with what they want. I reckon that is wrong.

We have a bad relationship with the Fiji government because it is an illegal dictatorship, in effect—a military dictatorship. We did our best, as did New Zealand, the United States, the UK and the European Union, to try to persuade Commodore Bainimarama not to mount a coup. So did plenty of people. I think we should keep the pressure up on Commodore Bainimarama. If the opposition policy is to do anything else—which I suspect it probably isn’t—I think it would be the wrong policy.

Of course we participate in multilateral institutions. We are a member of the United Nations. I enjoy my five-day visit to the General Assembly every year. We have a very active engagement with the United Nations and other multilateral institutions. But we are basically focused on outcomes, not on process. Process is fine and process is part of life, but if diplomacy were just about process and all we wanted to do was have a kind of merry little relationship in multilateral institutions with New Zealand and Canada—which is apparently the opposition’s policy—I do not think we would get terribly good outcomes. We are getting good outcomes in counterterrorism in Indonesia not because we are having a great gabfest in the United Nations or because we have some fantastic liberal multilateralist initiative. We are actually having success with the Indonesians and the Filipinos in the area of counterterrorism because we work bilaterally with them. We are focused on outcomes.

I do not have time to go through all the list, but there is a long list of various things that Australia has done in response to avian flu. I hosted a meeting of APEC health ministers in Brisbane to develop an APEC program for addressing avian flu. If the honourable member cares to go back and have a look at the conclusions of, I think, the 2005 APEC summit, he will see that APEC put together what I thought was a very effective response to the issue of avian flu. A tremendous amount of work is being done on avian flu. We, of course, are spending an enormous amount of money helping countries in the region. I have seen a few press releases and speeches on this from the honourable member. I would say that, whilst he is right to draw attention to the issue of avian flu, and Australia should be doing everything it can to try to at least contribute to addressing that issue in the region, that work is all being done.

Finally, I will address the issue of the tsunami. A lot of Australians put their own money into aid going to people in Indonesia and the victims of the tsunami. Off the top of my head, I think it was about $350 million of community money, quite apart from the more than $1 billion the Australian government put in. I set up a working group with the major NGOs to monitor how that money is being spent. We had six-monthly press conferences and meetings and we published reports on how that money was being spent and distributed and what the challenges and benefits are. I do not have time to talk about it any further, but I commend to the honourable member those reports and other material produced by AusAID on the success of the AusAID programs in response to the tsunami. I think it has worked pretty well. I do not think it is true that our response was in any way uncoordinated or ineffective. It was incredibly well coordinated, including coordination with the United States, Japan and the United Nations. There were phone hook-ups from time to time with Colin Powell, the then Japanese foreign minister, the head of OCHA and the United Nations to make sure that we were coordinated. (Time expired)

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously, there are points of difference, but I will not rebut any of the points the Minister for Foreign Affairs has raised; they are for subsequent argument. I think I may have used the word ‘rort’ as opposed to ‘fraud’ in the context of describing the the oil for food issue. I was not accusing any member of the department of fraud, and the Hansard should reflect that.

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Federal/State Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will begin by asking one very brief factual question before I make my major contribution. It relates to the question of the announcement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of $32.5 million for adaptation to climate change and, within that $32.5 million, the $7.5 million contribution to the Least Developed Countries Fund of Global Environment Facility. Can I just get clear, before we talk about the merits of broader questions to do with climate change, whether that is in fact a one-off contribution or whether the $32.5 million is the beginning of a series of annual commitments of that amount? It is not clear on the face of it. Is the $32.5 million a one-off? The forward estimates do not reflect, as far as I can see, any expenditure in the out years. I wonder if the minister can just confirm that first.

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We of course will have an ongoing program in the budget of commitment to assist developing countries in relation to the issue of climate change. I answered a question in the House about three or four weeks ago on this issue, and I commend that answer to the honourable member. This is the figure for this year, but I made clear in that answer that we have been involved for a long time, and will continue to be involved, in activities in relation to climate change in assisting countries in the region to adapt to climate change. I just use as one example—because it does not get too much publicity—the very longstanding sea level monitoring stations that we have. Off the top of my head, I think there are about a dozen of them around the Pacific. So we can monitor any changes in sea level and obviously assist those countries if the situation begins to deteriorate to the point that it causes concern.

We assist developing countries. I had a long chat the other day with the advisory body, the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, ACIAR, about assisting with research into ensuring that crops in particular, but agriculture more generally, can be adapted to changing climatic conditions. I suspect that not only will we have for many years into the future a continuation of these programs to address the issue of climate change and adaptation to climate change but also—if some of the more serious predictions about climate change turn out to be right—we will probably have to do more than we are planning to do at the moment.

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Federal/State Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand it would have been difficult for the minister to give a detailed specific response to that question at short notice, but I will proceed on the very generalised response that he has given me and pursue the matter subsequently. The government has announced with some fanfare some propositions with regard to climate change. Let us disaggregate the figures and look at them in the context of the aid budget—leaving aside the context including funding outside AusAID, most but not all of which will count in the aid budget with regard to the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate, the adaptation to climate change and, within that, the contribution to Least Developed Countries Fund of the GEF. Certainly, I agree with that last $7.5 million contribution. It is not that I think we should not be making it. To the contrary, I think that is the sort of area to which we should be making a more substantial contribution.

Peeling away the fanfare, I ask the minister to confirm the simple arithmetic. Over the forward estimates period the commitments with regard to the aid budget, both that from AusAID and that from associated departments on the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate, come to between one and 1.3 per cent of the aid budget. It seems to me that there is no question that, for many of the countries in our region, the capacity to develop a sustainable response to poverty alleviation depends upon a capacity to respond to climate change. I am a big fan of ACIAR—I welcome the fact that it is looking at some of these issues—but let us be realistic. This is a very tiny contribution, and in fact the funding in the budget on adaptation to climate change—the separate fund apart from the deforestation—comes to 1.02 per cent of the aid budget.

My point is that we have rhetorically had statements of commitment that have been dressed up as very substantial amounts. But within the aid budget it is a totally inadequate response to the character of the challenge. I welcome the fact that the government has made a commitment to increase the aid budget; I said that and I do not retract that support. We all know that what has really happened is that, having made substantial cuts to the aid budget in terms of percentage gross national income, the increase simply gets us almost back to where we started from—but not quite. But at least it is better than not having that increase. I ask the minister whether he can confirm that the percentage of the aid budget for deforestation and the percentage of the aid budget going to the initiative on the adaptation to climate change, even assuming that it is annual—which the figures do not show—rather than one off, is in the order of, in each case, about one per cent of the aid budget.

How can we see, going forward, this tiny proportion of the aid budget going to these climate change initiatives, irrespective of debate about their merits—and a lot of people have questions about some parts of that; I certainly support at least the part going to the Least Developed Countries Fund. I think that is an appropriate place to be spending the money. How can you say this is an adequate response to the challenge of climate change for our neighbours?

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all let me say, so everybody understands this, that the budget includes $164 million, which is over five years, for the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate—and I think that is a very important initiative. I would not necessarily measure the efficacy of these programs by the amount of money you put into them but by what the money buys and what it does. The $32.5 million is in 2007-08, as I explained earlier, and that is for partnerships with international organisations on climate change mitigation and adaptation initiatives. And I announced on World Environment Day, which was 5 June, a $7½ million contribution, which the honourable member for Fraser referred to, to the Least Developed Countries Fund and other smaller initiatives.

I am not sure what the percentage of the total aid budget is, but I am not quite sure what the member’s point is. If the point is that we should cut funding for poverty alleviation and proportionately put more funding into some sort of unspecified climate change initiative, I would not do that. I would not do it. What we need to understand—in fact, I feel pretty passionately about this—is that we are a global community. Politicians need to be a little bit better than one-trick ponies. I know the focus groups and Hawker Britton and so on tell you to talk about climate change the whole time, and I know you did a little deal with AID/WATCH the other day—apparently you were opposed to debt relief for Iraq, or you were in favour of it but not in favour of it, and debt relief is not really aid.

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Federal/State Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr McMullan interjecting

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is just a completely bizarre sort of opportunism, the like of which we are of course enormously used to—

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Federal/State Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because it’s not true.

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are very used to it. Of course it is—

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Federal/State Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’re making that up.

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was the honourable member’s name sprinkled through the story, and he was on the radio first thing in the morning as if it was something he had just read in the paper and stumbled across. I think not, mon ami; I think not. I have been a member of parliament for over 20 years. I think I know what MPs get up to.

My point is this: we need to address the issue of poverty alleviation and the issue of climate change, not just one of them—and addressing poverty alleviation can sometimes lead to increases in CO emissions. For example, poverty alleviation in China has been achieved but it has certainly led to a massive increase in CO emissions. But I am proud of the role Australia has played over many years in assisting with poverty alleviation, even though I accept that in many instances that has led to increases in CO emissions. At the same time we now have to try to get CO emissions down. That is an important challenge. We have got to do both things.

So, if we were to set ourselves some sort of target to increase the aid budget from whatever the percentage is today—I simply have not calculated it, because we run programs that we think will be effective; we do not do it on the basis of the percentage. Setting targets is a great favourite of the political Left. Remember Stalin—he set targets, didn’t he, for steel production and things like that? Targets are a great favourite of the Left. To set ourselves a target for a certain percentage of—the honourable member is leaving. I will not bother answering his question.

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Federal/State Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, I have to go—

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is just very bad manners, very bad. You ask a question and then you walk out. That is the Labor way, is it?

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

I have some questions on trade. I note that the trade minister is not here. Are you able to—

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, you ask them, and if I cannot answer them I will take them on notice.

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

I just register my concern that this is the consideration of the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio and the trade minister is not here. So, if we are talking about bad manners, let us get that on the record. I have two aspects of trade that I want to go to: one deals with the free trade agreement negotiations with China and with the US, the other to exports and the Export Market Development Grants Scheme. I will ask the questions about the free trade agreements first and get to the second group of questions if we can in the time available.

I refer the minister to evidence given in Senate estimates recently by the government’s lead negotiator for the Australia-China free trade agreement, Mr Ric Wells, first assistant secretary of your department, Minister. He conceded that negotiations with China are going nowhere because ‘the Chinese government does not want the FTA’. He also revealed that China has no interest in having a comprehensive free trade agreement and would prefer to exclude chapters on education, telecommunications and financial services. Mr Wells went on to say:

The Chinese also have reservations on including a chapter on competition policy. They have reservations on including the sort of chapter that we want on investment. They have reservations on including a chapter on electronic commerce. They have reservations on including a chapter on government procurement. It is quite a long list …

Minister, do you share the view that China does not want an FTA? If so, why has the budget allocated a further $12.7 million to this set of negotiations? Is the government going to insist on the chapters the Chinese want excluded being included? Does the government now accept that conceding market economy status to China without getting anything in return was a flawed strategy? In the interests of transparency, has the government undertaken and made public any hard, comprehensive study which shows what Australia will actually gain from an outcome in the free trade agreement? My final point on free trade agreements goes to the US free trade agreement. Can the minister confirm when the mid-term review on the free trade agreement with the US, which should be taking place around now, is to take place? What items will the Australian government be pursuing in that review?

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Some of these questions will have to be referred to the Minister for Trade, and any detailed questions on the Export Market Development Grants Scheme should certainly be put on notice for the trade minister. Let me just make a point about the FTA negotiations with China. I was in China a couple of months ago, and while I was there I spent some time talking about the FTA negotiations with China. There is no doubt that these are difficult negotiations. There is just no question of that. They are difficult negotiations. The reason these negotiations are difficult is partly that within China there is a lot of sensitivity about agriculture. Why? Because there is a lot of poverty, particularly in western China, and there is a growing wealth divergence between the urban parts of China—particularly in the coastal fringes of China, where there are high rates of economic growth and very substantial increases in income—and the rural parts of China. The government is very concerned about that. That means that the issue of agriculture is inevitably going to be a very sensitive issue.

Equally, given China’s history—you find this, by the way, with most developing countries—they are quite sensitive about the services sector. Of course, the very big gains that Australia could get from an FTA with China would not just be in agriculture; they would be in services. So that is difficult. There is no question of that. Equally there are sensitivities here in Australia, in the textiles, clothing and footwear and passenger motor vehicle industries. We have always said—and I think this is the point that Mr Wells was trying to make—that these negotiations are inevitably going to be very difficult. They will have their ups and down. We offer no guarantee that these negotiations will be successful. The Prime Minister has said that, I have said that and the trade minister has said that on many occasions. But they could be successful. We could achieve an outcome in these negotiations which would be very beneficial to Australia.

I think the wise thing for this country to do is to try its best to get a good outcome. I think it would be unwise just to tank the whole negotiations, to abandon the whole negotiations, on the grounds that they were difficult. That is not my approach to life. Just because something is difficult, I do not abandon it if I think it is potentially very beneficial. If I could say this to the honourable member: I think that is the perspective he needs to look at this FTA through. It is difficult; there is no doubt about that. It is very difficult, but worth trying. We have a chance of achieving a successful outcome, so we should stick at it. These are going to be protracted and difficult negotiations.

I am not sure of the exact timing of the mid-term review—that could easily be established—but the point is that the FTA with the United States has worked well so far. As the chamber knows, the government is much in favour of it. I think, particularly over the years, you will see very great benefits flow from the integration of the Australian and American economies, particularly bearing in mind the dynamic nature of the American economy in areas such as R&D and technological development and innovation. It is a most impressive component of the American economy.

There were obviously aspects of the agreement which we would have hoped would have been better. We said so at the time, in particular in relation to sugar. We will always have a look at and talk with the Americans about ways we could improve the agreement over the years ahead through mid-term reviews and other processes. But I think it has got off to a good start. We are pleased, in general terms, with the way it is working, and there are at least no high-profile problems with the FTA that have necessitated my direct involvement with my counterparts in America.

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

Some of the second grouping of questions might need to be taken on notice, but I ask the minister to confirm that since 1995-96, when the government came to office, the real value of the EMDG has been halved. I ask the minister to confirm that, earlier this year, Austrade advised him that, if funds for the EMDG were not increased, funds to be received by eligible businesses would have to be rationed and that the first tranche guarantee limit of $70,000, for example, would have to be reduced to $50,000. That was the advice we understand the minister got from Austrade. We understand that, in turn, he wrote to the Prime Minister before the budget seeking additional funds for Austrade. What I would like to know is why the Prime Minister refused to support Australian exporters with additional assistance. I say that against the background of the government’s target set back in October 2001 when the then trade minister, Mark Vaile, announced, ‘The government will aim to double the number of exporting Australian companies by the year 2006.’ He further stated that 28,000 Australian companies exported in the year that he made the commitment.

The facts are that, far from doubling the number of exporters from 28,000 to 56,000 in the time frame now past, there has only been an increase to 42,000 in the number of exporters. In other words, the target is only half—

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Downer interjecting

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

It is quite good, is it, Minister, to half meet a target in what is arguably the longest resource boom in Australia’s history and some 14 years of economic prosperity? The government has failed dismally in terms of the exporters of this nation. One of the points I am trying to make is that part of the reason we are not doubling but only meeting half of the target is that we are halving the funds going to the Export Market Development Grants Scheme. Exporting is about a partnership, and this government does not understand or accept its obligation in relation to that partnership. I ask the minister: why has the government failed so dismally in meeting its target?

In the recent Budget Paper No. 2, page 287 shows that the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources is getting $122 million over five years to facilitate Australian SMEs to participate in global supply trains. Why was Austrade, with all of its expertise, excluded from this program? Why has the government not sought to re-establish a business input into the activities of Austrade, having abolished the industry board that used to advise Austrade? I talked before about partnerships—partnerships with government and with business. If we are to support our exporters, they need resources and input. They need to give direction to the way the department and the agency, which are there to service them, oversee functions. I am disappointed again that the minister responsible is not here to directly answer these questions but I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to take them on notice and ensure that we are supplied with the appropriate answers.

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not take them on notice; I will answer them. I understand that our exports have reached a record level. We have never exported more than we export today. The proposition of the Labor Party is that there should be a massive increase in government spending on exporting, apparently. At the end of the day we believe in the private sector economy. I suppose this is what has historically differentiated the Labor Party from the Liberal Party and the National Party. This is a blinding revelation to some people, but we are not socialists. We actually do not believe in the government conducting all of these activities.

We do provide assistance. We had to cut the EMDG, I seem to remember, in 1996, when we were left with an $11 billion budget deficit. The Labor Party had scheme after scheme—the government will do this; the government will do that. The government will set your alarm in the morning and make you a cup of tea, the government will drive you to work and the government will export your goods and services—the government, the government, the government. Members opposite are socialists. They love all that sort of stuff. We believe in the private sector, in the genius of private enterprise, in the liberal market economy. When the honourable member’s father was a member of parliament the Labor Party used to be much more into socialism than it is today, but over the years the Labor Party has realised that just about everything it ever stood for was wrong. Imagine spending your whole life arguing for something and then admitting you were completely wrong. This is the Labor Party at its worst: why isn’t the government spending more money here and more money there? We know what the Labor Party’s point is: like the state governments, if Labor became the Commonwealth government it would blow out the budget and go into massive debt. The ordinary people of Australia would pay the price, through higher interest rates and a weaker economy. We know that. The Labor Party wants to spend more on this and more on that. That is all we have heard from it today. I will not take the questions on notice because they are the usual sort of rant about how we should be spending more government money—and not pursuing responsible budget policies. Yet we have the highest level of exports we have ever had in the country’s history. I think that statistic answers the question very fully.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Chris Pearce (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I suggest that the order agreed to by the Main Committee for the consideration of proposed expenditures be varied by the Main Committee so that it next considers the proposed expenditure for the Treasury portfolio and then the Defence, portfolio, the Veterans Affairs’ portfolio, the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio, the Attorney-General’s portfolio, and the Finance and Administration portfolio.

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the suggestion of the minister agreed to? There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Department of the Treasury

Proposed expenditure, $3,688,304,000.

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

My question, which the minister could perhaps answer for us, is on an issue that came up in a recommendation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing in The blame game report that was produced earlier. It is about the lack of PBI status, or public benevolent institution status, of certain institutions. Recently, submissions were made to the health and ageing committee’s inquiry into health funding. One of the issues that came up when we visited the IMVS in South Australia was that they had lost PBI status. People were working, perhaps side by side, in the same institution—medical staff and all sorts of people in diagnostic laboratories, pathology, and in-patient and outpatient clinical services—and were treated differently by the ATO. Consequently, the IMVS was unable to offer some staff the same salaries that other staff were getting in institutions that still get the PBI status. They were finding it hard to recruit and retain staff in such an important area, especially in regional areas, where we have huge shortages.

There was a recommendation in The blame game report, which I am sure would have been brought to the attention of the minister at some stage, that the Australian government amend the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986. It also affects aged-care facilities that are operated by local governments. The recommendation reads:

• local governments operating aged care facilities are able to qualify for fringe benefits tax exemptions granted to public benevolent institutions for employees involved in the aged care facility; and
• fringe benefits exemptions applying to public employers delivering health services in hospital-based settings also apply to public employers providing health services in other settings.

At the IMVS in Adelaide there are approximately 1,000 employees who are affected by this decision. They would like to see their status returned. A lot of them are leaving the institution and finding work with other employers who do offer those benefits. I would appreciate it if the parliamentary secretary could tell us whether there are any plans for the government to come up with a solution.

Chris Pearce (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Hindmarsh very much for his question. I appreciate the detail of his question, but I will have to take it on notice. I would be happy to do that and come back to the member for Hindmarsh.

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

This change to the PBI status affects local government and nursing homes. Because nursing homes are not benevolent societies and are run by local governments, they are affected by this ruling in a big way. In my electorate of Hindmarsh, it is becoming increasingly difficult to get nursing home beds in the western suburbs, but to be losing staff as well makes it even harder for us to recruit and to get the nursing home beds that are required in the area. With a bit of incentive, as was recommended by The blame game: report on the inquiry into health funding, we might be able to retain staff by offering better facilities in one of the oldest electorates in the country. This would ensure that we had enough aged-care beds for those people who need them. Currently, because land is fairly expensive in the inner western suburbs, new nursing home beds are being provided in outer suburbs. This is making it very difficult for people to stay in their community with their loved ones and others whom they want to remain close to.

If staff in these nursing homes are not getting the same tax breaks as other employees in the health industry, they will be attracted by ‘sweeteners’ or packages to leave these institutions to work in other areas. This will cause a loss of employees in the sector. There is a shortage of nursing home employees. This sector has one of the highest turnover rates of staff. We want to maintain those staff and the good facilities offered by the nursing homes that are run by local governments in my electorate and all around Australia. One of the recommendations of the report into health funding was that the government take this issue into consideration. Recently in parliament we tabled a petition with over 1,000 signatures which called for that recommendation to be taken into account by the government. Perhaps the minister could look at this area and let us know where we are heading with it so that we can at least maintain some of the staff who are already working in these nursing homes and also maintain some of these good institutions and their facilities. These institutions do a lot of good work, not only in my electorate in South Australia but all over Australia. I would appreciate a response from the minister at some stage, although he might not be able to give one off the cuff if it is an issue he is not aware of.

Chris Pearce (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I appreciate the remarks from the member for Hindmarsh. I will take it on notice and come back to him.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to raise the matter of withholding tax, particularly in regard to distributions from Australian managed funds to overseas non-Australian resident investors, and the costings of that tax, particularly the costings of a proposal to reduce the tax from 30 per cent to 15 per cent and to abolish gearing completely—which is opposition policy. The week before last, in a committee of the other place, evidence was heard from significant players in the financial services industry that the rate of gearing for investments in managed funds in Australia is very high. Under thin capitalisation rules, the rate can be as high as 75 per cent. Evidence was also heard from the Department of the Treasury that it assumes a gearing rate of zero per cent in relation to these investments. This obviously has a big impact on the costing of any policy proposal.

My question is: will the parliamentary secretary ensure that the Department of the Treasury sits down with key representatives of the industry represented by various peak groups, including IFSA and others, and obviously some of the big players in the industry such as AMP, Barclays et cetera—but particularly with the peak groups—and discuss those costings? Considerable evidence has been put to the government that the gearing rate is actually very high. Treasury say, ‘We do not get tax returns.’ Considerable evidence has been put in response that investors are using an Australian subsidiary company to avoid their withholding tax and are paying Australian company tax instead and with gearing rates bringing that down. Therefore, if the withholding tax were reduced from 30 per cent to 15 per cent and gearing were abolished, those companies would no longer have the requirement to do that and would be paying withholding tax, and the Treasury’s costings would be substantially different and, under some analyses, it would actually result in an increase in government revenue. I ask the parliamentary secretary to respond on behalf of the government to ensure that what is a very worthwhile policy initiative is not rejected by the government on the basis of poor assumptions and incorrect methodology.

Chris Pearce (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Prospect for his question. I am not sure what he is getting at. As he knows only too well, since we assumed government in 1996, we have gone out of our way to consult with industry stakeholders, unlike our predecessors. The Department of the Treasury is always consulting with industry stakeholders on a whole range of ideas, suggestions and proposals. In terms of asking whether the Department of the Treasury is prepared is to consult industry stakeholders, it is business as usual. They do that each and every day. In terms of the comment he made about a very worthwhile policy, you would expect that from him, wouldn’t you? But that is for others to judge, isn’t it?

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

After that extraordinarily disappointing response from the parliamentary secretary, can I confirm that he is not willing to ensure that the Treasury takes new evidence on the costings of this policy and that the Treasury and this government will take into account the substantial sworn evidence that was given to a Senate committee of this parliament—that the government is going to completely reject that evidence and not consider that evidence in relation to a policy change?

Chris Pearce (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to encourage the member for Prospect not to verbal me today. I understand that he enjoys being negative, but I am a positive person. As I said before, the Department of the Treasury consults more than any other government department, I am sure. That is why I am glad to be in this portfolio. They do a marvellous job of consulting with stakeholders and they will continue to do that. I confirm that the Department of the Treasury will consult with industry stakeholders. That is what the member for Prospect wants me to say. They do that each and every day. In terms of taking on board sworn evidence of Senate inquiries, the government places a high degree of importance on Senate inquiries and Senate activity and it will review all evidence in relation to every inquiry in the way that it always does—in a very serious and dedicated way.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Parliamentary Secretary, will the government take into account the specific, clear, sworn evidence given by industry experts? Will they consult further with those experts on this very important policy to make Australia the financial services hub of Asia?

Chris Pearce (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I have indicated, the answer is that the Treasury will consult with industry stakeholders.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure industry stakeholders will be glad to hear it and I am sure they look forward to their meeting with Treasury officials. This raises a very important matter. This government has adopted a policy of giving Australia an uncompetitive tax regime. This government has adopted the policy, despite the fact that the tax regimes of the United States, Singapore, the United Kingdom and Ireland and most other countries have a withholding tax rate equal to or less than 15 per cent—and they are flat and final withholding tax rates—and says it is acceptable to have a withholding tax rate of 30 per cent.

Australia has the 53rd highest population in the world, yet we have the fourth highest level of funds under management thanks to the superannuation reforms of the Hawke and Keating governments, which the Liberal Party opposed. We have the fourth highest level of funds under management and yet other countries are overtaking us when it comes to encouraging overseas investment in Australia. In Ireland, where the government has taken the approach of encouraging financial services investment and financial services exports from Ireland, they will soon overtake us in terms of funds under management and investment into this country from overseas nations. That is going to happen because we are being left behind with our tax regime, which is uncompetitive, and because this government, this Treasurer, refuse to adopt the policy or at least to talk to industry about the policy of reducing Australia’s withholding tax rate.

I heard the Senate debate on the Tax Laws Amendment (2007 Measures No. 3) Bill 2007 the other day. I heard a particularly vacuous presentation from Senator Ronaldson, who chaired the hearings of the Senate economics committee into this bill and—I will not say he misunderstood the arguments, because I think he understood them very well—clearly gave a completely different version of those arguments to the Senate. That shows the lack of foresight of this government in relation to the financial services industry and funds under management in this country. I call on the parliamentary secretary and the government generally to review this policy and give the Australian funds industry a chance and to get out of their way and give Australia a competitive tax regime—not to pick winners—which gives them an even chance in competing with their competitors overseas.

Chris Pearce (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first comment I would like to make is that we really do not need anybody from the Australian Labor Party to tell us how to manage tax in this country. I think the difficulty that the member for Prospect—from his remarks just now—has been listening to Sharan Burrow much too much. I cannot understand why the member for Prospect and those in the Australian Labor Party continue to want to sell down our country. Australia is the best country in the world and they keep on bad-mouthing Australia and selling us down. I cannot get over it. I know that is what the ACTU want to do, but I would have thought that a federal member of parliament would want to sell up and uplift our country. That is the first point I make.

The more general point is, as I mentioned earlier, that I do not think we need any gospels or preaching from the Australian Labor Party when it comes to tax. The member for Prospect talked about the Hawke-Keating government and tax. I remember the Keating government in relation to tax, as you would, Mr Deputy Speaker Secker. I remember the famous l-a-w tax cuts, which we Australians were meant to get, which were never realised of course. But the Howard coalition government has done more to help Australians and Australian business in relation to tax than any other government in Australia’s history.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Moving on to another matter, can the parliamentary secretary confirm that under the Trade Practices Act he, the parliamentary secretary, the Assistant Treasurer or the Treasurer can give a written direction to the Chairman of the ACCC to formally monitor prices, which includes profits, margins et cetera, in any industry in Australia?

Chris Pearce (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Prospect, like all other members, understands the TPA, and there is a facility for the Treasurer to direct the ACCC in relation to the matters that he has mentioned. But, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the ACCC already monitor petrol prices.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to speak for a couple of minutes so the parliamentary secretary can check whether he has the power. I am not sure that he knows. He might want to check whether he has the authority personally, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, to give the direction himself. I will speak for a couple of minutes and he may wish to take the opportunity to check. He may not choose to take that opportunity, but I ask him to confirm whether he, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, has that capacity.

In 2005 the Chairman of the ACCC, the watchdog of motorists and consumers, said there was something funny going on with petrol prices. Two years later, in January this year, he was on the front page of the Daily Telegraph saying that oil companies were not passing on reductions in petrol prices from overseas and he was very concerned. He said the same thing last week. I have no quarrel with Mr Samuel—I think he does as good a job as he can with the authority that he has—but under this government’s changes to the Trade Practices Act he cannot formally monitor petrol prices, which means getting behind petrol prices, seeking documents, talking to witnesses, ensuring that there is no price gouging and ensuring there is no collusion, unless he has a formal written directive from the government to do that. I am asking the parliamentary secretary to confirm to the House that he, as an individual, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, has that personal authority.

Chris Pearce (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I indicated to the member for Prospect, the Treasurer, as the portfolio minister, has the ability under the Trade Practices Act, and naturally anybody else that is a sworn federal executive councillor in the portfolio under the delegation of the Treasurer would be able to do that.

Steve Gibbons (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer. Given that the Treasurer has the powers to direct or request the ACCC to investigate fuel prices, can you tell me how many times the Treasurer has actually exercised that power in the past 11 years?

Chris Pearce (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I mentioned earlier—I am not sure whether the member for Bendigo is aware—the ACCC already monitor petrol pricing throughout Australia. It is already happening. I am not sure what the Australian Labor Party is on about. The ACCC undertake informal price monitoring. It is used to provide information to consumers. They do this through publications and on their website. They also monitor LPG prices. They do this at around 4,600 stations throughout Australia.

Steve Gibbons (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the parliamentary secretary for that non-answer. The question was: how many times has the Treasurer of Australia contacted the ACCC and directed them to monitor and appropriately deal with the cost of fuel in Australia?

Chris Pearce (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I mentioned earlier, the ACCC already undertakes the monitoring of petrol prices in Australia. It is already happening.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the moment the ACCC does informal price monitoring. Let us be clear. The parliamentary secretary is taking the opportunity to use a terminological inexactitude which he very well knows is misleading the House. The ACCC does an internet search of petrol pricing. The ACCC puts petrol prices on its website. It does a good job at that. The Australian people do not need a website to tell them that petrol is expensive. What they need is the ACCC to have the power to get documents to examine petrol pricing and to have the power to formally subpoena people to provide evidence on petrol pricing under section 95ZE of the Trade Practices Act. The parliamentary secretary has confirmed that he has the personal authority to do it; can he confirm that he declines to write to the Chairman of the ACCC under section 95ZE of the Trade Practices Act?

Chris Pearce (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry; what was the question?

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the parliamentary secretary confirm that he is declining to write to the Chairman of the ACCC and direct him to formally monitor petrol prices, as provided for under section 95ZE of the Trade Practices Act? And, no, it does not happen at the moment; at the moment there is no formal petrol price monitoring.

Chris Pearce (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whether or not I write to the ACCC is a decision I will make. I will not make it based on an invitation from the member for Prospect, with the greatest respect. But, as I have already indicated, the ACCC does monitor petrol prices throughout Australia. I also remind the member for Prospect that, as he knows only too well, there are other provisions in the Trade Practices Act where the ACCC can actually oblige people to provide information. So, far from me misleading the House, I suggest that the member for Prospect was being a little too cute in some of the comments that he made earlier.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The parliamentary secretary clearly is not comfortable talking about petrol prices, so I will move on to a broader matter. Given that the Dawson inquiry recommended criminal sanctions for cartel operations in 2003, as I recall, and given that the government indicated in 2005 it would legislate to introduce criminal sanctions for cartel operations, some four years later can the parliamentary secretary confirm when the government intends to introduce this legislation?

Chris Pearce (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government has made its position on this policy known, and it is moving forward on that basis.

Steve Gibbons (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why don’t you know it, then? Could you tell us what it is?

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, could you tell us what it is? When—some time this decade?

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to. The honourable member for Prospect.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the parliamentary secretary for that John Moore answer. Could the parliamentary secretary assist the House by telling us when the reforms to section 46 of the Trade Practices Act which the government accepted as a result of the Senate inquiry in 2004 might be introduced into the House. Will they be introduced in this session?

Chris Pearce (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will introduce its legislation at the earliest possible time.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me ask a question about whether something has happened—not when something will happen, because the parliamentary secretary is not clearly willing to answer those. Has the government circulated its proposed changes to section 46 of the Trade Practices Act to the states as required under the act?

Chris Pearce (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will have to take that question on notice and I will get back to the member for Prospect.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of Defence

Proposed expenditure, $19,720,501,000.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a series of questions I would like to ask the minister. I would like to begin by drawing the minister’s attention to a media release following the recent ASIST conference in Melbourne. Delegates to this conference included representatives of the RSL, the VVFA and the TPI Federation, as I am sure he is aware. In a media release, conference delegates unanimously resolved:

That, the DVA Mental Health Policy Section Directorate advise the Department and the Minister as follows:-The Minister provide new and additional funding to match the amount announced by Allan Griffin—

Labor’s shadow minister for veterans’ affairs—

to ensure the positive future of Program ASIST and its extremely valuable contribution to the wellbeing of the Veteran Family.

The Minister instruct the Department that Program ASIST be formally placed under the control of the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Services (the VVCS).

The Minister … meet with a delegation from the ASIST National Conference to give a formal and definitive reply prior to 31^st July 2007—

which is not too far away. It also said:

It was the strong resolve of all Delegates that Program ASIST would not continue within the current arrangements.

I want to confirm whether or not the minister has actually received this advice or seen the press release and, if so, what was his response? Will he be following Labor’s lead in this area? Will he continue as his predecessors have done and just ignore the program?

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Oxley for his interest in this subject. I am sure he will assist me if I have overlooked any elements of his question. I am aware of the meeting last Thursday. In fact, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs hosted, arranged and funded the participation of people in that meeting. That has been our process each year because we are very supportive of ProgramASIST. In fact, the Howard government is the government that provided the resources and the commitment to actually see ProgramASIST established. It is a program that we think is important. It helps to build knowledge of suicidal behaviour and build the confidence in people who might come in contact with a member from the veterans community at risk of self-harm. It looks at a number of mental health issues. It encourages people who feel that someone is at risk of self-harm to contact proper mental health professionals and the comprehensive program of support that is offered by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs for mental health and self-harm concerns.

For the member for Oxley’s information, I am aware that the opposition has made some claim about putting some funding into ProgramASIST. It was an interesting announcement that, I think, was made at the Queensland congress of the RSL. It implied that, even though the call for funding was, I think, $1.6 million over four years, the opposition indicated a willingness to contribute $1 million over four years and implied that the department would need to find the rest from its own resources. That is rather odd because I think earlier in the day there were accusations that the department was cutting back its resources and that there was not enough to do its work. Yet, here, the Labor Party was insisting that some magical $600,000 of help could be found.

One thing that needs to be recognised is that the department has an open-ended willingness to support participation in ProgramASIST. What happens is that the department funds the training scheme. I cannot remember the name of the provider, but the provider of the program does a terrific job. Where there is a veteran member willing to participate in that program, we fund the program participation fees, which are about $200 per attendee. We have developed and distributed a package of ProgramASIST promotional material, and we partner with the veterans community to make sure any willing member of the veterans community keen to participate in this program is able to do so. That is an open-ended, ongoing, multiple-year commitment that the government has made, and that stands. What we have also supported is the work of the coordinating committees with two meetings each year as well as face-to-face meetings and teleconferencing, and ongoing financial and administrative support for the national coordinator. We are very supportive of the program.

What also needs to be recognised is that in 2006-07 there were 56 veterans who participated in this program and we funded their participation. In fact, over the years tens of thousands of dollars have gone towards that. The opposition seems to think there will be thousands and thousands of veterans participating in this program, and that is the assumption on which their funding commitment is made. As if the only constructive thing that the community can do to support veterans at risk is to fund participation in the program when clearly there is not that level of interest. There were 56 participants in the last financial year. We have made an open-ended commitment. If there were 556 participants we would finance that contribution.

But to suggest that it can be fixed by throwing more money at the program—recognising that we have been supportive of it since 2001, that there is not the take-up that we anticipated and that it has the support of all the major veterans organisations who also promote it, yet there is still not the take-up of the program—I think highlights just how unwise it was of the Labor Party to simply stick its sticker onto an email, which I also received from the promoters of this program, and claim it as policy. They did not do the hard work and recognise that self-harm and the mental health and wellness of our veterans community requires a comprehensive strategy, one the department is continually putting in place and improving.

We are working on Operation Life, which is also a comprehensive program that recognises that we need to promote resilience, mental health and wellbeing across the broader veterans community. We need to look at what those protective factors are that reduce risks. We need to involve families and those supportive in addressing self-harm, deliver support through the veterans and veterans’ families counselling service, develop the know-how within the veterans community and continue research. That is the comprehensive strategy that the veterans community is looking for and that is what we are delivering.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question of the minister in relation to Indigenous veterans’ graves. I have been approached by a Mr John Schnaars from Western Australia as to the provision of greater support in terms of Aboriginal servicemen and Indigenous members of the defence forces where their graves can be identified. He expressed some frustration at the ability to gain further funds for this worthwhile cause. I ask the minister: what funds are currently available and are there any proposals for the future?

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you to the member for Canning for his question. The area of Indigenous veterans is a significant priority for the department, for the government and particularly for me. There are estimated to be between 3,000 and 4,000 Indigenous veterans who have served our nation with great honour. Those veterans and their dependants are an important part of the veterans community. But what we know is that we are only engaged with about one in 10 of that group. What we have, and this has been in place since 1999, is a communications strategy to reach out to the Indigenous veterans community, to emphasise that the benefits and support including the proper commemoration of graves is an entitlement to which they are eligible, as are non-Indigenous veterans, and to make sure that we have systems in place to reach out and engage the Indigenous community.

I have put on a staff member, a veterans policy officer called Rob Nobel, who is an Indigenous person himself with experience in the military area. Right across the country, we have Indigenous contact points and awareness raising as part of our work. I would be more than happy to pursue that matter further with you and put the individual that you have spoken to in touch with Mr Nobel and our team, who are very focused on the needs of our veterans community, particularly those Indigenous members of the veterans community who are not fully engaged with the benefits that are available.

I know the member for Canning, representing the great state of Western Australia, would also understand that even for remote communities that have a member of the veterans community within them, my department funds that person’s health needs directly. These are additional resources on top of what may be already available in the community through the Indigenous health or community health programs. So you can see that there is an opportunity there to do more. We recognise that. The benefits are as they are for non-Indigenous veterans, but what we do recognise is that there needs to be a different method of engagement and outreach to contact them, and to develop trust and good working relationships as part of our effort. I would be more than happy to get the name of the individual you have mentioned and make sure he is part of that work.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to help the minister—who, in answer to my previous question, seemed to mix his metaphors and confuse his concern—perhaps he could at least acknowledge this. Labor are going to bring the assistance program formally under the control of the veterans and the veterans’ families counselling service, the VVCS, and we will also provide new and additional funding of $1 million over the four years. There would be other costs that would be absorbed. The proposal that we put forward keeps the control of the service with the ex-service community while relieving them of the responsibility of resourcing it. That was the point I was trying to make. I think the minister agrees and we can perhaps move on.

Could the minister answer as to whether he would join with Labor and index the whole of the special rate, the TPI and TTI, the immediate rate and extreme disablement pensions, to movements in the MTAWE—male total average weekly earnings—or CPI, whichever is the greater? If not, why not? Can the minister also explain the comments he made in the House on 23 May when, in relation to our policy, he said:

… what is understood by thinking members of the broader veterans community is that the policy he is bringing forward is discriminatory, it is unprincipled and it vandalises and undermines some of the key principles and key foundations that allow governments—successive governments—to implement a pro-veteran beneficial system that is characterised as being responsive, sound and principled against the veterans’ experience.

Will he join with Labor on the indexation—the whole of the special rate issue that I raised—and explain what he actually meant by those comments?

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Oxley for his second question. I am more than happy to talk about this subject. My point is, no, I will not join the Labor Party in their cobbled together, hastily put together, media stunt on the eve of the budget. I made those points quite clearly. What we have seen right throughout my time as minister, and ministers beforehand, is that the Labor Party do not come forward with the hard work. They do not put in the effort to get policy proposals right. As was just mentioned regarding the ASIST program, a simple Labor sticker has been stuck on top of a memo that I also received via email. I have emphasised—and perhaps the member for Oxley overlooked the point—that our support for the ASIST program is part of a comprehensive strategy.

There is no single solution to self-harm. Veterans, serving men and women of the Defence Force and the broader veterans community all live full lives. There are other influences on their wellness and emotional wellbeing, and that is why a comprehensive strategy is required, not simply putting more money into a program that is currently unconstrained by the budget that supports it—that is, more people want to participate. We have more resources to accommodate that. The simple reality is that in the last financial year there were 56 people. With the support of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and the major ex-service communities promoting the program, it would be simply naive, superficial and lazy to suggest that that is all that is needed to tackle the mental health issues of the veterans community.

I go to the second question that was asked of me. In terms of the indexation of payments that are made to the veterans community, the indexation principles are very sound. They are entirely defensible. They recognise the special place of our veterans community and take account of the basis upon which the payment is made. The cobbled together, hastily put together, announcement that Labor made was the same announcement that the shadow minister, at the Queensland RSL congress, fessed up about when he said that smarter minds than his had put this idea together. It emphasised his lack of understanding about the program. He was quite open about his own confusion.

Labor are actually proposing a method of indexation that is not used for any other payment within the Commonwealth. He and the Labor Party have confused the methods that are used for service pensions, where payments are adjusted against either a benchmark of 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings or movements in CPI. What that says is that if the CPI movements over time do not maintain that 25 per cent benchmark then the adjustment is made back to the benchmark. The Labor Party, not understanding this, have said they will have an indexation method—a cobbled together, either/or, whichever is greater, method—that does not exist anywhere in the Commonwealth system. It again emphasises the lack of work that the Labor Party constantly display in just badging someone else’s idea, and then, when it is highlighted to be unprincipled, unsustainable and unsubstantiated, they say, ‘Brighter minds than mine came up with this idea.’

I am highlighting—and the member for Oxley may be very interested to know this—that 100,000 veterans receive injury compensation payments and, in fact, may have exactly the same condition as the people that the announcement of the Labor Party was focusing on, and they will potentially have exactly the same condition indexed differently for no other reason than it is a political stunt of the Labor Party. What you saw in the budget is real money payable now, not some promise on the never-never, not some idea that the Labor Party have brought forward, where they will come up with some entirely new method of indexation and think about implementing it in late 2008 that may produce a benefit in 2012.

You see local members of parliament running around saying, ‘Labor promises to increase benefits.’ That is not accurate. It is unprincipled. It does not reflect the quality of the work that the coalition puts in place and it also does not address the simple fact that, when you are putting in place a repatriation system that recognises the special status and the particular needs of our veterans community, you do not junk those principles. The last time I stood in this place the member for Banks said, ‘Why are veterans different from pensioners?’ They are very different from pensioners. We need to understand why that is the case and not junk the principles that have seen our system develop and evolve over many years and many governments. That is why I made those remarks.

If the member for Oxley and particularly the shadow minister who has fessed up to his ignorance about them wants to have this explained to them again, I am more than happy to do that, because their vandalism of the veterans’ affairs system will stand as one of the great negative contributions Labor has made to veterans’ affairs. At least up until recently they just did not care; now they just do not bother doing the work and they are indifferent to the consequences of that recklessness.

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When I said ‘smarter than me,’ I also meant smarter than the minister. But, in the context of that, could he briefly explain which other indexation system that is used now and which other payment by the Commonwealth is indexed in the same way that they currently do special rate pensions—not the formula; the split rate, the whole system.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again the member for Bruce is asking me to explain Labor’s policy. One of the things that is very clear is that, for those people that are receiving special rate benefits, there are two elements to that benefit. One relates to the injury compensation—that is for the pain and suffering of the service related condition for which they have been recognised and they are receiving compensation payments. This is where the people in part of the general rate table of injury compensation receive those payments, and they are indexed against CPI. That is consistent, that is principled, that is the manner that is used in civil awards for injuries of this kind and in other fields where people are being compensated for injury, pain and suffering, such as elements of workers compensation. The special rate pension reflects the fact that, as a result of those injuries, someone has been denied the opportunity to participate in the workforce. That is why there is a very special provision made for those people who, as a result of their service, are injured or impaired or have an illness that denies them the possibility to be engaged in the workforce.

What the Howard government has done is recognise that where you see a buoyant labour market with real growth in income—and it is an issue the Labor Party has never had to contend with—it is appropriate to reflect that real growth in income in a payment that reflects the fact that an injured, impaired or ill veteran cannot participate in the workforce and is being compensated for it. So it takes account of that very particular characteristic of the payment. It is sound; it is principled.

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I could actually interject in the context of this: so you are maintaining that it is a unique system used only for this particular benefit and not used elsewhere in the Commonwealth?

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

This is not a debate; this is a matter of questions and answers.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is another example of where the opposition tries to verbal anybody who might have a different view. I was quite amazed and it is still happening now. Interjection, interjection, grievance, grievance, grievance, looking at life through a straw—that is all you can expect from the Labor Party. They are an absolutely appalling disappointment to so many people in the veterans community. What you are seeing today is another example of it—like at the Queensland congress where the opposition gets up and verbals the RSL as if they somehow endorse their proposal. The RSL said nothing of the kind, but never let honesty and integrity get in the way of a claim.

When the opposition jump up and say, ‘Oh, we’ve got this indexation sort of slippery, slimy plan that doesn’t actually start until 2008 and might amount to $30 by 2012,’ they then run around saying that there will be a big increase in income.

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

The minister will come back to the question and answer the question.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have another example here where, with a very clear, measured, principled answer to a question, the opposition wants to rumble it together and run off and make it something it is not. The basis of these indexation methodologies is sound, it is principled and it is understood by the veterans community. But, above all, when we are taking $11 billion from other taxpayers to make special payments and special provisions for those for whom we have a special duty then we need to be clear on why we are taking that money, the basis on which it is being made available and why the veterans community is entirely justified in having these special provisions available for them.

I have explained the indexation methodologies. A number of people have explained them to the member for Bruce but, as he said at the Queensland RSL, he is not quite sure what is going on here because wiser minds than his have put forward this proposal. Perhaps he should come to terms with the foundation principles that have seen our system evolve over many generations to be world class and admired by many. Those who are not in the veteran community wish they were, because it is so admired. The benefits that are provided are principled, entirely justified and can be explained soundly and with a measure of integrity to those who are providing the money. That is what the Labor Party should address, rather than just putting its dodgy Labor sticker on whatever email comes through.

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

This is a debate where we just want questions and answers.

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could the minister, on a yes or no basis, instead of verballing people, confirm whether the system that is currently underway and being used is unique.

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

The member for Bruce will resume his seat. The question is that the proposed expenditure for the defence portfolio be agreed to.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned.