Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with standing order 149 the committee will first consider the schedule of the bill.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

The schedule read as follows—

Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Portfolio

Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Portfolio

The Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts Portfolio

Health and Ageing Portfolio

Defence Portfolio

Defence Portfolio (Veterans’ Affairs)

Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio (Foreign Affairs)

Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio (Trade)

Trade Portfolio

Resources, Energy and Tourism Portfolio

Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government Portfolio

Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Portfolio

Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Portfolio

Human Services Portfolio

Immigration and Citizenship Portfolio

Attorney General’s Portfolio

Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Portfolio

Finance and Deregulation Portfolio

The Treasury Portfolio

The Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is it the wish of the Main Committee to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the order suggested by the minister? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $6,831,870,000

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This budget, the first Rudd-Swan budget, came as a shock to a great many Australians, not least because of the tax increases but also because of the unemployment forecast in this budget. We have certainly not seen unemployment forecast in a budget for many years. My focus this morning is on why Treasury forecasts of a significant worsening in employment growth and unemployment are not reflected in the department’s plan for 2008-09. Specifically, the budget’s labour market forecasts show unemployment growth halving from 2.5 per cent to 1.25 per cent in 2008-09 and unemployment increasing from four per cent to 4.75 per cent by June 2009 and show that the halving of employment growth will result in 134,000 jobs being lost or not created within the next 12 months.

Funding for the Newstart allowance increases by over $800 million in these papers for 2008-09, so my questions to the minister are as follows. Does the minister stand by the forecast of the employment growth halving and unemployment increasing in the budget? Are these forecasts likely? Assuming so, why has the funding for Job Network been reduced? Why does the department’s brochure on the future of employment services in Australia say that Job Network is ‘no longer suited to a labour market characterised by lower unemployment’ when in fact Treasury is forecasting unemployment to rise? Does the minister agree that many, perhaps most, of the people who will lose their jobs or be affected by reduced jobs growth will have work skills and experience by virtue of the fact that they are currently in employment? Why, then, has the government signalled its intention to shift resources away from the people most likely to be affected by the worsening labour market? This intention is clear from the budget papers, which indicate that significant increases in expenditure on other programs are estimated to achieve worse results than in 2007-08. In particular, employment assistance has a 17 per cent increase in its budget, resulting in a nine per cent to 10 per cent reduction in the use of the Disability Employment Network and other disability services. Rehabilitation services have an 18 per cent increase in their budget, resulting in a 12.5 per cent reduction in commencements. Why is the government proceeding with its planned changes in these programs when they increase costs and make things worse?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her questions. The budget does contain forecasts of macroeconomic conditions. Of course, that happens with every budget, and this budget contains such forecasts. In relation to the forecasts in this budget, we say that the government inherited a high-inflation environment from the previous government. The upwards pressure on inflation has led to upwards pressure on interest rates. The track record of the previous government was to see interest rates rise time after time after time. We inherited the worst inflation rate in 16 years. When you inherit macroeconomic conditions like that, they have implications for the economy overall, and the budget tracks those implications. What the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is pointing to is the way in which the Howard government failed in terms of managing the macroeconomy, because we inherited from it a high-inflation environment and one which puts upwards pressure on interest rates.

What does the budget do to deal with those matters? Of course, the budget has been calibrated to be part of the government’s fight against inflation. In making that calibration to fight inflation, the government has delivered an economically responsible budget, where new expenditure items are matched by savings. As people would be aware from the debate that is conducted in the main chamber of the House of Representatives and in other places, this stands in stark contrast to the track record of failure of the Howard government in not pursuing budget savings in past budgets. In addition, to make sure this budget is a prudent and fiscally responsible budget, the government has calibrated this budget to put downwards pressure on inflation and interest rates by addressing a number of the supply-side constraints in the economy. In particular, the budget makes new and major investments into education and training, including major investments in skills formation, with 630,000 training places to be delivered by the government over the next five years.

Beyond that, the budget also deals with constraints in the economy in the form of infrastructure constraints. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition would note that the budget has led to the creation of the new Building Australia Fund, which is a substantial fund to enable the government, in partnership with the private sector and stakeholders, to address the infrastructure bottlenecks around the nation. All of these things working together are about putting downwards pressure on inflation and interest rates. That is obviously good for the economy and good for all settings in the macroeconomy and is a course that the government intends to pursue.

On the question of the new employment services model, the government has been consulting and intends to deliver a new employment services model with the Job Network tender round. Job Network is coming up for re-tendering, with the new round to commence on 1 July 2009. Given what a big project the Job Network re-tender round is, the government has already started the task of preparing for that re-tender round. There has been a consultative process, led by my ministerial colleague Brendan O’Connor.

The emphasis of the new employment services model is to provide more assistance to the most disadvantaged job seekers. As people would see from the budget papers, unemployment by historic standards in this country will continue to be at relatively low rates. We believe in investing employment services money in people who are most disadvantaged. The new employment services model has been designed to do that. It has also been designed to reduce the contractual red tape and funds that are wasted in the current complex model that is available for the Job Network. The new model is a streamlined model, with a focus on assistance for most disadvantaged job seekers. Of course, we do not want to see people locked out of the labour market and we do not want to see children grow up in jobless households. With our new employment services model, we believe that focus on the most disadvantaged will make a difference. (Time expired)

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Anthony Smith interjecting

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind people that you need to jump. I would have given the call to the other side.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We were operating on last year’s convention.

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

Last year’s convention was that whoever jumped got the call.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not right.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Casey does not have the call. There is no convention. There are no standing orders. I do not have anything. I have never been given anything. All I know is that whoever is first on their feet gets the call. I would have given it to the other side but nobody was on their feet. I will give it to the member for Shortland, but then I will go to the other side because I do not necessarily have to give it back to the minister.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. The issue I would like to raise with the minister relates to the Australian technical colleges. I would like to get an assurance from the minister that the situation that existed in the Hunter will not be allowed to exist under her watch. It was a situation where an Australian technical college was brought into operation before the program was ready to go.

I will share with the House what happened in the Hunter. Students were enrolled in the Australian technical college and, whilst they were enrolled and the places were there, there were no tools for them to use, no benches for them to operate on and no work experience available for them. This caused enormous stress for the parents. I had a number of parents come to see me because their children—their young adults—had left school and enrolled in the Australian technical college. On the advice of the previous government, they were led to believe that their sons in these cases, by enrolling in the technical college, would have a better chance of getting employment and that it would lead into an apprenticeship and a worthwhile career.

What actually happened? The parents visited the industries in the area and managed to scrape together some donations of tools. Rather than the government buying the tools and having them in place before the students started, the parents had to find the tools. The second aspect was the benches they had to work on. Believe it or not, the parents had to go into the Australian technical college in the Hunter and build the benches so that their sons could undertake the training in the college, which was established before it had the tools or the benches it needed.

It does not stop there. These young boys were promised that they would get work experience, but no work experience was organised. No employers signed on to offer the work experience that these young boys expected. On the days that they were supposed to do work experience, they had to go home. They sat at home and watched TV or, if it was a good day—Shortland being the electorate it is—they were able to go to the beach. They could go surfing but, whilst that is a pleasurable activity, it did absolutely nothing—

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Shortland is wasting our time raving on about people going surfing. If she has a question to ask the minister, she should ask it.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the member for Shortland to come to her question.

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

My question relates to the issue that I have already raised. Will the minister give an assurance to the House that under her watch (1) students will not be enrolled in programs like the Australian technical college that was established in the Hunter where (a) there were no tools for the students to use, (b) there were no benches for them to work on—no workbenches—and (c) there was no work experience organised for them; and (2) parents will not be expected to do the job of government and build the benches and find the tools?

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have one question to the minister flowing from her response to the previous set of questions where the minister referred to inflation a number of times as one of the government’s central tasks. I was hoping the minister could outline and reaffirm to the House the government’s inflation forecasts and projections for the next four years.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just on the question of conventions in the consideration in detail of budget estimates, I would remind members present in the Main Committee, just in case they have forgotten, that one of the conventions of the previous government was to send parliamentary secretaries to this part of the parliamentary program. I certainly recall that happening year after year when I was shadow minister for health. Obviously, the convention has changed, with me appearing on my own behalf as the responsible minister in the chamber today. The minister for health may like to speak about how the parliamentary secretary for health was sent routinely to deal with the consideration in detail of the budget estimates for health, one of the biggest government areas of expenditure.

Moving on from a discussion of the conventions of how this is dealt with, I turn firstly to the contribution by the member for Shortland. I am distressed to hear that people in her electorate were so shabbily treated by the former Howard government, and I can certainly understand the distress of parents who have seen their child disengage from school in the hope that they were going to get a better opportunity only to find that that opportunity, as promoted by the previous government, was not real. Obviously, training requires access to tools and equipment; work experience needs to be real, and that requires partnerships with local employers. In that regard, this government is determined to do better. We believe that the Howard government engaged in more than a decade of neglect when it came to skills formation. This was in fact dealt with very revealingly by the member for Goldstein when he indicated that the Howard government was well aware that a skills crisis was coming, waited for it to hit with full force and did not make appropriate investments in skills formation.

The approach of this government is going to be very different. As the budget papers reflect, we have determined that we will invest $2.5 billion in trades training centres in secondary schools. They will be facilities which do have the necessary equipment—benches, if that is appropriate for the training; kitchens, if that is appropriate for the training; computer equipment, if that is appropriate for the training—for students to use and learn on.

In relation to vocational education and training more generally, the government have created the $11 billion Education Investment Fund and have specifically given the vocational education and training sector access to that fund. We believe that there is a need for major capital investment and renewal in the sector if it is going to be in shape to meet the skills needs of the 21st century.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister has been speaking for 3½ minutes and has not managed to inform the Main Committee what the inflation forecasts are that she says are so important. She has just over a minute to go—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Casey will resume his seat. Can I just reiterate that the standing orders on question time will not apply during this debate.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was of course dealing with questions from the member for Shortland, which were the questions first presented to the Main Committee because the opposition neglected to jump to get the call, which is really a matter for it. The government will be investing through the Education Investment Fund in renewal of capital and equipment in the vocational education and training sector. That comes on top of our recurrent investments to create 630,000 new training places.

In relation to the question asked by the member for Casey, I direct his attention to Budget Paper No. 1. Budget Paper No. 1 is the one in which the macroeconomic forecasts of the government are contained. He may learn from reading that that what the budget papers reflect throughout and what the Treasurer’s statement in presenting the budget reflects is that we have a high-inflation environment. I do not know if the opposition is still in denial about that. (Time expired)

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the member for Bass.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Bass has the call.

Jodie Campbell (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to add my voice to those who have spoken in support—

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, you are not treating this Main Committee with the spirit of—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Warringah will resume his seat. I have given a call a side. I am giving the member for Bass the call. We are actually back to where we should be.

Jodie Campbell (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to add my voice to those who have spoken in support of the Higher Education Support Amendment (2008 Budget Measures) Bill 2008. Labor promised the Australian people an education revolution, and that is exactly what this legislation sets about delivering. My electorate of Bass is one in which the University of Tasmania plays an integral role—and, Minister Gillard, I thank you for your continued support. It is a place not only of higher learning but also of employment. It is at the heart of many cultural aspects of northern Tasmania. I am pleased also to say that it is one of 38 institutions specifically targeted to receive increased funding throughout the implementation of this legislation.

The Rudd government has allocated $500 million through the Better Universities Renewal Fund—a fund in which the University of Tasmania will share. Together with the Rudd government’s Education Investment Fund, it is reshaping education in this country. It is yet another example of this government following through on the commitments it made to the community before the last election. The incentives which are being introduced to encourage the study of maths and science and early childhood education—

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This was meant to be open, transparent government, where the minister would come and answer questions. We were not expecting to have a self-serving statement from members of the government—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. I do remind you that I have the opportunity to put you out of the Main Committee. There is actually a standing order to provide for that, and I would like to be the first to use it. The member for Bass will get to her question, please.

Jodie Campbell (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These incentives respond to a real and pressing need not only across my electorate in northern Tasmania but also across the country.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation and Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, she is defying the chair.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Bass will get to the question.

Jodie Campbell (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a government, we are committed to addressing the skills shortages in critical areas—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Bass needs to propose a question.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation and Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ask a question.

Jodie Campbell (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will ask a question. Why should a prospective student who can pay full fees be given preference over another? Minister, I am sure you will have something to say about that in a moment. Why should university places be awarded based on finances rather than merit? And I am sure, Minister, you will have something to say about that in a moment. I believe, and this government believes, that that should not be the case. The higher education support amendment bill does away with that culture that discriminates, and provides the means through which universities can offer positions to non-full-fee paying students and not lose. In my home state of Tasmania, the changes brought forward by this bill are particularly welcome, Minister. The incentives offered to encourage study in specific areas will assist would-be university students to offset the costs. Can I, Madam Deputy Speaker, talk about an incident where we certainly worked—

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation and Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dr Southcott interjecting

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Boothby does not have the call. Member for Bass, have you concluded?

Jodie Campbell (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I have not.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Bass, if you have an additional question, please ask one.

Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Schultz interjecting

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Hume will resume his seat. The member for Bass will conclude with a question, please.

Jodie Campbell (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly want to bring to the attention of the minister—though she may be aware of this—that the University of Tasmania’s Vice-Chancellor, Professor Daryl Le Grew, and I had some discussions about how best we could work with the people who lost their jobs through the Telstra call centre. Within days, Professor Le Grew came back to me with a proposal to offer these Telstra workers the opportunity to further their education with the assistance of HECS-waiver scholarships. That is what we are doing down in our electorate of Bass. (Time expired)

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just have two quick questions for the Deputy Prime Minister. The first question is: how many people will not receive the childcare benefit as a result of the budget means test changes? The second question is: is the government considering a system of price control for the childcare sector similar to the one that is in place for private health insurance?

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Were there any additional questions?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was trying to assist the opposition by stacking a few questions up and answering all of them in a five-minute lot, but we will do it this way if that suits the convenience of the opposition more generally. I was trying to assist. Obviously every member of this parliament has an equal right to pose questions in the consideration in detail of the budget, so I will turn to the questions from the member for Bass first.

On the questions asked by the member for Bass, she is absolutely right. In this budget we have delivered on the government’s promise to phase out full-fee-paying places for Australian students. The government did that because we believe simply that it is wrong that Australian students should be judged for entry to higher education on the basis of their capacity to pay. That was a system of the former government, where it put capacity to pay before merit. We believe Australian students who want to go to university and take up undergraduate places should be assessed on the basis of merit. We think that that is the Australian way, and the budget papers deliver on that and deliver on the phase-out of full-fee-paying places for domestic students.

On the second question that the member for Bass raised, I am pleased to note that she was able to work with the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Tasmania, Daryl Le Grew. I have had the opportunity of meeting him and I am glad to hear that there were options available for people who worked in Telstra call centres. I know that has been a substantial issue in the member’s electorate. Obviously we are very concerned, and part of the policy settings that drive the budget is to ensure that there are opportunities for training and retraining throughout life.

On the questions raised by the member for Warringah in relation to CCB, I will take him to some of the details in the budget papers. He is right; we have introduced an income cut-off point for CCB, the childcare benefit. Prior to the introduction of this income cut-off point for CCB, which is an income-dependent payment—it is assessed in relation to income; the higher you earn, the less you get—it hit a minimum level. At higher income rates it hit the minimum level and continued. The minimum level was, indeed, a very minimum level. We believe, as a matter of fairness, that it would be better if the taper that is in place continued so that CCB actually becomes zero at high income levels. The levels that we are talking about for a family with one child in approved care is $126,000; for two children in approved care it is $131,000; and for three children in approved care it is $148,000. That is where the taper hits the zero rate.

I think there was some misunderstanding about this in the early days beyond the delivery of the budget. I know the member for Warringah was concerned about this. There was some confusion that, if you were beyond the taper and you had zero CCB, you would no longer be eligible for the child care tax rebate. I cannot quite remember whether the member asked about that in question time but I know that he did raise it publicly and was concerned about it. I am very keen to clarify that we are restructuring, so people are deemed, even when they have a CCB rate of zero, to still effectively be CCB eligible so that they trigger their eligibility for CCTR. So it is not true to say that, if you are no longer in receipt of CCB, you are ineligible for CCTR. You can be at a high-income level and not be eligible for CCB but still be eligible to get CCTR. What that means, if you model it across all income ranges, is that everybody is in advance of their position pre budget. Everybody will get more assistance for their childcare costs than they did under the former arrangements, which I think is a great result for working families.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the point that the Deputy Prime Minister has made, but I think she misunderstood my question. If you are in approved care you get the childcare benefit and the childcare rebate, but if you are in registered care you only get the childcare benefit. There are some people who are in registered care and who are getting the benefit currently at the minimum rate, which could be up to about $25 a week per child, but who will no longer get anything as a result of the means tests that the government put in place in the budget. I am asking the minister how many people are in that position.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer the minister to her announcement that Professor Denise Bradley has been appointed to head an Australian higher education review. I might say I have known Professor Denise Bradley for several years and find her to be an excellent choice by the minister because of her commitment to education. My question relates to a comment made in the publication Dialogue by Simon Marginson, Professor of Higher Education at the University of Melbourne’s Centre for the Study of Higher Education. He says:

Between 1997 and 2004 the immediate throughput of students from the final year of school to the next year in first year higher education dropped from 40 to 31 per cent.

He goes on to say:

The outcome of successive fiscal decisions under Howard was a sharp deterioration in the public funding level and in the teaching and research capacities of Australian higher education relative to most OECD nations and to the emerging Asian research and development (R&D) economies of China, Taiwan and Singapore. In the 1970s and 1980s Australia funded tertiary education at above the average OECD level of public investment as a proportion of GDP. In 2004 Australia spent 0.8 per cent of GDP in public investment in tertiary education compared to an OECD (and USA) average of 1.0 per cent. On this measure, Australia was 25th of the 29 OECD countries for which data are available.

My question is: when is Professor Denise Bradley’s inquiry likely to be completed and will the matters I have referred to be addressed in that inquiry?

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that the minister has her lackeys up here asking questions to fill up time—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Leader of the Opposition!

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

given the budget forecast of 134,000—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Leader of the Opposition, you will withdraw that remark—

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

because I think it is inappropriate, as you have been saying, to tackle the Public Service in that way.

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

Ms Hall interjecting

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Shortland will resume her seat. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has the call.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I made no reference to the Public Service. Given the budget forecast of 134,000 job losses, will the minister confirm that she has not commissioned or received any concerted economic analysis or modelling at all on the likely impact of the government’s workplace relations policy on unemployment, labour productivity, real wages, income distribution, economic growth, inflation or interest rates? Will the minister in fact direct her department, in conjunction with Treasury, to prepare a report on the economic impacts of the government’s workplace relations policies, including the eight specific economic outcomes I have already listed?

Further, I refer the minister to Budget Paper No. 2, which states that the government has allocated $13.3 million over four years to lodge collective agreements. Is it the intention of the Labor government to return to the lodgement of collective agreements via the Australian Industrial Registry?

I also refer to the significant cut in funding for the Workplace Authority of some $30 million for 2007-08. Given this significant cut, which results in a lack of education, advice and assistance for business about agreement making under the government’s system and a subsequent downturn in agreement making for all types of agreements, and given the fact that there is a substantial body of evidence—often referred to by the minister’s own department—that highlights the benefits to the economy of agreement making, can the minister explain how Forward with Fairness is going to address the downturn in agreement making and, in turn, flexibility in the workplace?

My next question relates to the application of the no disadvantage test. The Workplace Authority has allocated funding to the development of a no disadvantage test policy guide setting out how it will work. Will the minister answer yes or no as to whether the following terms and conditions can be modified or traded away, cashed in or removed under the government’s new no disadvantage test: uniform or laundry allowances, overtime or penalty rates, vehicle allowances, meal allowances, annual leave or sick leave, redundancy payments, rostering arrangements and long service leave entitlements?

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on the delivery of a first-class budget. I will use this opportunity today to ask some questions about the $19-odd billion that has been invested in early childhood learning and schools and tertiary education in this budget.

Turning first to early learning, I note that there is $2.4 billion in funding over the next five years for early childhood education. In particular, I am interested in the $500-odd million over five years for universal access to preschool, providing every four-year-old in the country with at least 15 hours of preschool, 40 weeks a year. In my electorate of Blaxland, in south-west Sydney, I have contacted all the local primary schools and asked them how many children go to preschool before they attend kindergarten. Their advice is that it is around 50 or 60 per cent. The Parliamentary Library tell me that the national average is in the order of about 85 per cent, so I think that this is a policy which is going to be extremely beneficial for the young children of Blaxland, and I would appreciate the advice of the Deputy Prime Minister on how that will be rolled out and what she believes will be the primary benefit to people in my electorate.

For my second question, I am particularly interested in the $114 million that will be spent over the next four years to establish 38 childcare centres. I point particularly to the six autism-specific centres that will be developed across the nation. I think this is part of the establishment of about 260 childcare centres that will be built on school sites as well as on community land. Again I draw your attention to Western Sydney and the fact that a lot of parents do it tough. The Deputy Prime Minister mentioned inflation in her previous comments, and these are families that do it tougher than most. Rising interest rates—12 increases in a row—have meant that people in my electorate—

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Anthony Smith interjecting

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. I draw the honourable member’s attention to page 418 of House of Representatives Practice, which says:

Debate which covers departmental activity and government policy in the area, as well as financial details, is in order.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So these are families that do it very tough—tougher than most. I have often described it, in this place and in the main chamber, as the mortgage stress capital of Australia. It is also a place where there are a lot of families looking after children with autism.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation and Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: there is no question in this, and the purpose of this is to have an open and transparent—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have already ruled on this point of order and I have pointed out that there is not a requirement for a question. The honourable member will resume his seat.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a further point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker Thomson: your distinguished predecessor in the chair, Deputy Speaker Burke, ruled that there should be questions involved in the contributions. So I respectfully put it to you that you are not following the precedent quite properly observed by the senior Deputy Speaker when she was in the chair a moment ago.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have already ruled on this matter. I have pointed out that debate is in order in the consideration in detail stage.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a further point of order—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have already ruled on this matter. Do you have a different point of order?

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point of order is that this is a matter where seniority ought to be respected. The senior Deputy Speaker, in the chair, took a different position. I respectfully suggest to you that you might consult with the Clerk as to what the senior Deputy Speaker did when in the chair just a moment ago.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have advised the House that debate is in order. I refer you to page 418 of House of Representatives Practice. I call the member for Blaxland.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very happy to ask a question. I am interested in—

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes—after 4 ½ minutes.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you had not interrupted so many times, the question might have already been asked. I am interested in how the decision will be made about where those centres will be. I am very keen to see one of those centres in the region that I represent.

Finally, with the time available, I make the point that the Deputy Prime Minister has made some comments about the old public-private school debate. I believe, like you do, that funding should be based on need, and I am interested in the impact that that would have on my electorate, on the people of Blaxland. (Time expired)

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take the questions in turn. I did misunderstand the member for Warringah. I was talking about approved care and I understand now that his question was about registered care. So, while I correctly explained the operation of CCB and CCTR for approved care, I understand he has an interest in registered care. What I think is important for the member for Warringah to understand is that the income changes to CCB do not affect registered care. The proposal for CCB for registered care—that is, care provided by friends, relatives and nannies who have registered with the Family Assistance Office—is that the changes do not affect those families. Those families will continue to receive the minimum rate of CCB. I think that is the question the member wanted answered. They will continue to receive the minimum rate of CCB. The member for Warringah is right: such families in registered care do not attract CCTR. I can understand why he would have asked that question, and I think it is an important factual point. The new changes with CCB not hitting a minimum rate and continuing at high-income levels to zero are changes for approved care. They are not changes which impact on CCB eligibility for registered care. I hope that has specifically answered the question he asked.

The member for Makin asked about the Bradley review of higher education. The member for Makin is right: by world standards our universities have been through a very difficult period under the Howard government. We are intending to redress that. The Bradley review is about ensuring that our universities are a world-class system for the next decade and the years beyond. We want to take a long-term, strategic approach to higher education. The issues that the member for Makin raised are the sorts of issues which will be comprehended by the Bradley review, and I thank him for his question.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked a number of questions in the workplace relations area, which I will turn to. She asked, in the first instance, about the assessment of collective agreements. That is being presently undertaken by the Workplace Authority. Consistent with Labor’s policy Forward with Fairness, after the implementation of our substantive industrial relations changes, the assessment of collective agreements will move to Labor’s new industrial umpire, Fair Work Australia. At that point, the Workplace Authority will cease to exist. The reason for creating Fair Work Australia is that we have an aspiration for a one-stop shop which will be easier for employers and employees. So, following our substantive industrial relations changes, a collective agreement assessment will be undertaken by Fair Work Australia. That is the nature of our reforms.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

I presume I take up where I left off. I was answering the questions of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The second question she raised—I think it was the second question—was about a $30 million cut to the Workplace Authority. We have reduced resources for the Workplace Authority. We have done that because we anticipate that the impact of the transition act will be that fewer individual agreements are made. Consequently, we believe the work of the authority will be less. We are very well aware that, in relation to the authority, we are cleaning up a huge mess of over 100,000 agreements that are waiting for processing. We are not getting to the end of that, but we are making progress in addressing the backlog. We have hit a stage where the number of agreements being processed means that a dint is being made in the backlog. Instead of the backlog getting bigger and bigger month after month, the authority is starting to make a dint in it. This is a huge mess created by the former government. We are tidying it. We have to tidy it up in the interests of employers and employees who are caught in the backlog. It is one of the legacies of Work Choices, and we are dealing with it.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition raised a question about the operation of the no disadvantage test. The operation of the test is that people need to get the conditions specified in the so-called Australian fair pay and conditions standard. Then they need to come out better off than the award. That is the way in which the test operates.

The last question I was asked was from the member for Blaxland. He is right; universal preschool is an important development for social equity. We are investing in that. His last question to me was on childcare centres. We are commencing the rollout of childcare centres. The first 38 will be rolled out as a result of budget initiatives. For the balance of the program, we will be working in partnership with state and territory governments. We will be consulting with local communities and stakeholders. We want to put those centres in areas of need and where they will make a difference. We have said publicly—and I know the member for Warringah is interested in this—that one of the criteria in assessing the providers for the centres will be to look to providers with a track record of affordable provision. I think that deals with all of the questions asked in a slightly disrupted pattern.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question to the Minister for Education relates to the Quality Outcomes Program within her portfolio. I ask the minister to outline to the Committee the individual budget components—that is, what the budget is for each item—of the Quality Outcomes Program. Given that the program is budgeted to receive a cut of about $28 million over the next four years, could she outline what will be spent in each area?

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question arises out of a series of meetings I have had with school principals in my electorate, particularly in the Lockyer Valley and in Ipswich. It deals with trade training centres.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that the time for this particular budget estimate has expired.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That question is beyond the discretion of the chair. When speakers have finished on this item, I will put the question and then move on to the next item.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

School principals have welcomed the trades training centre initiative, but it is really to do with timing, payment of money and whether schools can combine. For example, St Edmund’s College in Ipswich have talked to me about what they describe as an Ipswich trades training centre. They have had some consultations with St Mary’s College, a fellow Catholic school, as well as Ipswich Girls Grammar School and Ipswich Grammar School. They have different emphases when it comes to trades training in their particular schools and they have discussed with me whether they can in fact combine and make a joint application for an Ipswich trades training centre. I have spoken to Mayor Paul Pisasale, the Mayor of Ipswich, about this issue; he supports it. I have also spoken to the Mayor of the new Lockyer Valley Regional Council, Steve Jones, about a trades training centre for the Lockyer Valley, for the Lockyer District State High School and also for Laidley State High School. When might the money come? Is it possible to pool together, and can schools therefore specialise when it comes to trades training so that, for example, someone can emphasise the engineering aspects and someone else can emphasise CAD?

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will call one of the opposition members if they wish to continue on this particular item: I call the member for Boothby.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation and Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I would like to ask the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations a question about the General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme. There is an increase of approximately 20 per cent in the budget for this program this year. Is that because the government is predicting more businesses will go out of business in the next 12 months? How many more businesses does the government expect will use this scheme in the next 12 months? What types and sizes of businesses does the government expect will fail in the next 12 months?

I would also like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, in her capacity as Minister for Education, the following: can she advise us when phase 2 of the Productivity Places Program will commence and, specifically, how many existing workers will receive training under this program and in what period? And can she update us on when the agreements will be concluded with the state and territory governments?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To respond to the question from the member for Casey on the Quality Outcomes Program, that is, as the member would probably be aware, a discretionary program. The savings have been derived from uncommitted funds—that is, there are no programs that have been funded under that that are going to experience a withdrawal of funding because of the savings measure. So, that is from uncommitted funds.

The answer to the question raised by the member for Blair about the government’s $2.5 billion investment in trades training centres is: yes, schools can certainly collaborate; they can put in a joint application; they can partner up. We anticipate schools around the country will turn their minds to doing that, and a number of schools have indicated to me in my travels and discussions with them that one of the things they are thinking of doing is either clustering and building a bigger facility that all schools use, or partnering and developing their facilities but with full knowledge of what other schools in their area are also applying for so that one school could specialise in the provision of trades training in one trade, safe in the knowledge that a nearby school was going to develop their facilities specialising in another trade. Then they could have arrangements for students to move between the schools so that they get the opportunity to have the experience of different trades, through schools working in that kind of partnership arrangement. So, certainly, the schools in the member for Blair’s vicinity have all of these options open to them.

On the questions raised by the member for Boothby, the GEER Scheme is a demand driven program. For GEERS to be engaged, there needs to be a corporate failure in circumstances that are triggered by the guidelines, to put it broadly—that is, in circumstances where there is no reasonable expectation that employees are going to secure their entitlements in the course of the distribution. The expenditure patterns for that are budgeted bearing in mind the historic draw-down patterns on GEERS, so the best possible anticipations are made of likely needs against those historic patterns.

The member for Boothby might give me a hint on the final question he raised.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation and Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to repeat it if you like.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just give me a hint of the topic and I will remember.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation and Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was phase 2—

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Phase 2 of the productivity places; sorry. You are absolutely right; the productivity places come in two types. There are productivity places for people who are outside the labour market and productivity places for people who are within the labour market and seeking to upskill. Those productivity places are going to be delivered in partnership with state and territory governments. We are entering those agreements now. The member for Boothby would probably have seen that I have made some public announcements about an agreement, for example, with Western Australia. He should anticipate there being further agreements struck with states and territories which will be announced at the time.

I suspect the member for Boothby would also be aware that the specific purpose payment for vocational education and training is due for renewal in December this year. That is being worked on through the new COAG processes. The Prime Minister had a Council of Australian Governments meeting in December, which kicked off a major round of work and reform aimed at ending the blame game and the cycle of inefficiency, waste and lost opportunities that hallmarked Commonwealth-state relations under the Howard government. That was no more so than in the skills area, where the Howard government’s inability to deal with state and territory governments in a fair way meant we saw no renewal or renovation of our vocational education and training system, thereby playing a role in the generation of the skills crisis. We will be working on the renewal of that agreement through COAG processes and it will be announced before the end of the year.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation and Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to jog the Deputy Prime Minister’s memory. My specific question was: under phase 2 for existing workers, when does the training commence, how many workers will be trained and over what period?

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Deputy Prime Minister has the call.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And the Deputy Prime Minister views herself as having provided the answer.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This will be the last question for the Deputy Prime Minister from the opposition so that we can go to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. I want to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for appearing here in person and also, in anticipation, the minister for community services. I concede that ministers did not always appear in the former government, and I think it is good that they have appeared. I think the opposition will be talking to the government about how the format for this might be improved and regularised for next year’s budget. I refer the Deputy Prime Minister to an observation she made in her last answer where she said that, as part of awarding contracts for the new childcare centres, the government would have regard to the pricing policies of the operators. My question is: will the government be instructing the tender assessors to disregard tenders if a tenderer has raised prices at their other operations by more than a particular percentage?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the member for Warringah’s constant character traits—some would find it endearing; others, frustrating—is that he sees the world sharply in black and white, and there are ranges of complexity that he always finds difficult to deal with. I will leave it for others to assess whether it is endearing or frustrating. I think the member for Warringah dreams at night in a fevered way of socialist conspiracies; they worry him greatly. He ought to be getting a good night’s sleep. We are talking about a better and more efficient market in child care. When we talk about a better and more efficient market in child care, one of the things that have put upwards pressure on childcare fees is obviously supply constraints. We want to address the supply constraints. That is what the up to 260 new childcare centres are about. That is what the new workforce measures are about.

You would anticipate, as we address those supply constraints—and the government is in the phase of dealing with partnerships, such as public-private partnerships and partnerships with community based organisations and not-for-profit organisations—that one of the things that would be in the mix of that decision making is a track record of having provided affordable child care. Of course, it will not be the only thing but it will be one of the things in the mix of that decision making. This is important in terms of the allocation of the up to 260 childcare centres. It is important in terms of the shape of the childcare market. Through addressing supply-side constraints, we obviously want to do what we can to assist with ongoing childcare affordability. I remind the member for Warringah, who I think is fond of claiming that all things in this budget would have happened had the Howard government still been here, that a major childcare affordability measure in this budget—the increase in CCTR from 30 per cent to 50 per cent—would most assuredly not have happened had the Howard government been re-elected.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $3,270,142,000

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have three questions for the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. I refer the minister to the changes which this budget makes to the definition of ‘income’ for the purposes of receiving a range of benefits. My first question is: in terms of the family tax benefit, what will that change to the definition of income mean? How many people who currently get the family tax benefit will lose it? My second question is: apart from the family tax benefit, what other government measures and government benefits will be affected by this change to the definition of income? My third question is: what estimates of savings are there as a result of these changes and their impact on access to benefits? I presume the government has done these estimates.

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

It is important that we recognise why the government is making these changes. We are making them to make the system fairer and more equitable and for income from different sources to be treated in the same way. The first question—I want to make sure I am following the three questions accurately—was about changes to the definition of income for family tax benefit purposes. What that will mean for family tax benefit parts A and B is that 12,700 beneficiaries will lose the benefit and 61,700 will lose some of the benefit. However, you have to remember that about two million people are receiving family tax benefit A and B, so take that into account. That is the number of people who are receiving family tax benefit part A or part B who will be affected by the changes.

Regarding the second area, which goes to other benefits, there is also an impact on family tax benefit, and the changes that we are making will affect the Commonwealth seniors health card. I will get the accurate figure for you. You also wanted to know the level of saving, and I will get that for you too.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the thoroughness with which the minister is addressing these issues and I congratulate her on that. I also thank her for bringing some of the senior officials of her department to do this. I appreciate that there are a couple of matters on which she will come back to me, but in relation to her answer to my first question—the first of the three questions—she said that about 12,700 beneficiaries would lose access altogether to family tax benefit part A and part B, and 61,000 would have a reduced benefit as a result. Is it possible to be more specific and say how many of those beneficiaries are part A beneficiaries and how many of them are part B beneficiaries?

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

We will get back to you.

Damian Hale (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the minister. I firstly want to voice my strong support for the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment (2008 Budget Measures) Bill 2008. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 and to appropriate an additional $9.05 million to deliver on two budget measures: expansion of the intensive literacy and numeracy programs, and the building of three boarding facilities in the Northern Territory.

The government’s policy on Indigenous affairs focuses on closing the substantial gap that exists between the socioeconomic outcomes of the Indigenous and the non-Indigenous populations. I just remind those present of what the Prime Minister said in his national apology to the stolen generations. He stated:

Today’s apology, however inadequate, is aimed at righting past wrongs. It is also aimed at building a bridge between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians—a bridge based on a real respect rather than a thinly veiled contempt. Our challenge for the future is to now cross that bridge and, in so doing, to embrace a new partnership between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians ... the core of this partnership for the future is the closing of the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians ...

That was Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on 13 February 2008. The $56.4 million builds on the government’s significant investment in programs such as the National Accelerated Literacy Program and Making Up for Lost Time in Literacy. This represents a tangible and important contribution to accelerating improvements in literacy and numeracy achievements of Indigenous students.

My question, Minister, is: how will this extra funding and the building of boarding colleges help reduce the 17-year gap in life expectancy between non-Indigenous and Indigenous Australians?

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

I thank the member for Solomon for his question and for his very real interest and commitment to Indigenous affairs and particularly to young people and their need for education. We recognise that, particularly in the Northern Territory, there is an enormous amount to be done. Before the election, we made a commitment to fund 200 extra teachers in the Northern Territory and, as the member said, to fund three new boarding colleges, because we recognise that there are many, many places in the Northern Territory where children, particularly of secondary school age, just do not have access to secondary school, and of course we want them to attend a school. If they should attend school, they have to have a school to go to. We certainly do support this boarding college approach in both the Northern Territory and elsewhere. We are in the process of discussing the location of these boarding colleges with our Northern Territory colleagues and we certainly look forward to seeing those constructed and to seeing the new teachers coming on board.

The other area he raises is of course the critical area of literacy and numeracy. We understand that the gaps in the achievement of Indigenous children in both the Northern Territory and other parts of Australia are unfortunately a long way short of that of non-Indigenous children. That is why we have, once again as part of our election commitments, indicated that we are going to put additional resources into literacy and numeracy—really targeted resources, especially for little children, because we know that if you do not get it right in the early years then it is very hard to catch up later. These are very significant commitments that we have made.

I will go to the overall area. In this budget—and I am sure the member for Solomon knows very well and understands how desperately needed this is—we have allocated $666 million to the Northern Territory as part of our Indigenous budget. That goes across a wide range of different portfolios because we recognise just how critical it is to invest in education, certainly, but to also invest in health. In the law and order area there is a substantial contribution for night patrols and there are a number of other areas that we understand continue to need our attention. Even with this money, we know that more needs to be done. It is going to take some time before we close the gaps—the life expectancy gap, the education gap and the employment gap—in the Northern Territory, particularly in the remote parts of the Northern Territory. Even in the member’s electorate, which is largely based around Darwin and Palmerston, we understand that Indigenous people are not achieving at school to the same level as non-Indigenous citizens and that they do not have the same health. We intend to work very closely with the member for Solomon, and of course with our other colleagues in the Northern Territory, to really address the shocking gap that exists.

I would like to go back to the member for Warringah’s questions. I will do the best I can with what I have. I just want to make clear that the numbers I have already given you are in relation to the changes that refer to salary sacrifice and superannuation contributions—as long as we are really clear that that is what that was about. On the issue of the net savings from gross income and salary sacrificing with regard to the Commonwealth seniors health card, we expect the net savings to be $20 million. I am advised that we do not have the split here between the gross income and salary sacrificing. If we can get that for you we will. But that is the net saving on that initiative, and we will chase up the other figures.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I have one question on the national campaign to reduce violence against women and two or three questions on homelessness.

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

Just to assist the member for Farrer, the Minister for Housing is going to join us shortly. I am happy to take those questions, but she will be here shortly, if you would like to ask her. It is up to you. I just wish to assist the committee.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to wait for the Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women, but can you tell me when she will be here?

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

Ten minutes.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Heritage, the Arts and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to ask a question of the minister. Some $20 million was taken out of the Northern Territory emergency response budget. Minister, can you identify exactly which programs are to be reduced or cancelled as a result of that cut? We in the coalition are also concerned because some of the measures that have since been introduced as amendments to the original emergency response bills in fact increase costs. For example, now allowing 30 per cent of pornography to be on pay television in these prescribed communities will mean a lot more policing to ensure that not more than 30 per cent pornography on pay television is being screened into these most vulnerable settlements. Another amendment was to allow communities to ask that all pornography be removed from their communities. So there will be an additional policing cost. Of course, the coalition’s policy was no pornography at all. A further amendment to the emergency response bill provided that it was no longer a crime to transport pornographic materials and alcohol through these settlements. That, again, will increase the cost of policing. We are concerned as to how you are going to manage that, given the cuts in the budget.

I am most concerned to know whether the funding is continuing that the coalition put into the emergency response for reimbursing those who were on top-up with CDEP—there were not many but a few; about 1,500 people out of the 8,000—because they were doing some real work on CDEP. The coalition response to this problem was to transition those people as soon as possible into real jobs, to help them with job seeking and employment, but the top-up salary was there for another 18 months—though it was hoped that it would not be needed for 18 months—so that they could be transitioned into jobs without a drop in their welfare payments. We have heard little about this initiative since the new government has come into play, and it is of great concern to people out there.

My further question is in relation to the CDEP providers, who we intended would be going out of business as CDEP—the Aboriginal Work for the Dole—was replaced with real job opportunities and real work. We offered CDEP providers payments to become STEP—Structured Training And Employment Projects—providers. I would like to ask how many of those old CDEP providers have accepted the challenge of now moving to being real employment providers using the STEP. We had funding, of course, to support that transition, which we see as a key to helping Indigenous Australians in the emergency response areas to take up the vacant positions that are often surrounding them, depending exactly where their community is.

In relation to the Aboriginal boarding colleges, which were very recently announced—and which we in the coalition support wholeheartedly—as you would be aware, Minister, we already had significant numbers of those funded through Aboriginal Hostels Ltd. I would like to know: have you substantially increased the funding for Aboriginal Hostels? Besides the three that you have identified in the emergency response, there is great demand for such additional boarding colleges right throughout Australia. How are you going to handle that demand? Are there plans to put further funding in place to meet the additional demand which is already out there?

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

Member for Murray, I will respond as well as I can to each of the many questions that you just asked. I will just work backwards. You would be aware that the boarding colleges that we announced in the election campaign, which are funded in this budget, are additional, so they are extra. They are for three extra places in the Northern Territory. I agree with the member that this is an important program, one that I think there is strong bipartisan support for. We recently also announced—not as part of the budget but separately—that we would fund the new college at the secondary school in Weipa. We have taken a slightly different approach in the Kimberley, where I have announced funding for four hostels. Those hostels will be targeted not at secondary school students but at young people who are in training who need to be in places where they can study and be closer to their places of training—the TAFEs or the employers that they may be training with. So we are certainly embarking on that approach.

I acknowledge that the previous government also had programs—in the education portfolio, not in this portfolio—for supporting children to go to boarding schools. We support that approach. Some of the land councils are putting their own money into supporting children to go away to boarding schools. We want to work with the boarding schools and the Indigenous leadership, who are really supporting these approaches in many, many parts of Australia. We will continue to do so. It is something we feel very strongly about.

You have asked some very detailed questions on the issue of CDEP, and I will have to get back to you about those. We will take those on notice and I will make sure we get a response back to you on those detailed points. I would just like to say that, in general, we strongly support the movement of people off CDEP into properly paid jobs and, like the previous government, I have been very critical of many previous Commonwealth governments, state and territory governments—this is not a peculiarly Northern Territory problem—and local governments, for that matter, who have used CDEP to basically pay people on the cheap. We recognise that there is a need to fund those positions properly. In the case of the Commonwealth, it might be childcare workers. In the case of state or territory governments, it might be health workers or teacher aides. In the case of local government, it could be road workers. There are a range of different jobs where, unfortunately, governments of all persuasions have done the wrong thing by these people. I certainly acknowledge the money that was put into last year’s budget to help us transfer people off CDEP wages onto proper wages. That is proceeding and proceeding quite well in the Northern Territory. We agree with the opposition that this needs to be pushed ahead with our state and territory colleagues and with local government.

On the issue of the Northern Territory intervention, the member for Murray asked whether or not we have initiatives in the different areas the Northern Territory intervention went to. I refer the member to the ministerial statement: we have initiatives in early childhood, supporting both playgroups and creches. There is money in education, both continuing the initiatives of the previous governments, such as the school—

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Heritage, the Arts and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where are the cuts to come from?

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

We have not cut out any initiatives. We have not said, ‘We won’t do school nutrition,’ for example, or ‘We won’t do night patrols.’ Obviously, we think all of those things are important, and I refer you to the budget papers, where all of these are separately identified. It goes through all the different parts. (Time expired)

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate the minister on the way she is handling this. Following on from the questions from the member for Murray—I know the subject of pornography in remote communities is sensitive—it was the Howard government’s intention to totally ban pay TV porn in these remote townships subject to the intervention. The current government’s legislation only bans it on the request of a community, under particular circumstances. I have heard the Prime Minister and the minister talk about the importance of getting the porn out of these places. I am not quite sure that the government appreciated that it was actually watering down the porn restriction with its legislation. So I ask the minister whether the government might be prepared to revert to the tougher measure that was introduced earlier.

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

I thank the member for Warringah for his question. This is an area where we share a commitment. I think we understand across the parliament just how damaging the availability of pornography in any community is. I am sure the member for Warringah has seen the reports in the media this morning of the very successful work done by the Australian Federal Police on this issue in the broader community. I think it is an area that we all feel has to be addressed. The member for Warringah also understands, I am sure, that we are adding to the measures that were put into the parliament last year by the previous government. We supported the measures that the previous government introduced to control access to pornography. The bill in the parliament now adds another measure. It is not watering things down; it is adding another measure to the legislation which was introduced and agreed to by the previous government. I also add that it is not actually a budget issue.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to draw the minister’s attention to page 178 of Budget Paper No. 2 and the heading ‘Financial Counselling—enhancing existing programs’. I see in the budget papers that funding will be extended to something in the order of $20 million, which I welcome. I have spent some time over the last few weeks meeting with financial counsellors both in my electorate and across Sydney. One thing they all have in common is that they tell me they are very stretched. A lot of people are queuing up to see them.

I recently met with Tony Devlin, who runs counselling for the Salvation Army, and he made the point that, whereas four years ago 10 per cent of their clientele were people with mortgages, suffering housing stress, it is now in the order of 40 per cent, which helps to explain why the need for this funding is so great. He also made the point that people often come to financial counsellors too late—when the sheriff is at the door or the bank is foreclosing. At that point in time, financial counsellors can do very little to assist people that come to see them.

He also made the point—and others have made this point too—that people who come to financial counsellors are sometimes pensioners or people who are unemployed and yet have six credit cards and debt in the order of $100,000, which is very difficult to explain or for banks to justify. I am glad to see that the green paper on financial services is addressing this point, because I think it is appalling and something that definitely needs to be addressed.

My question to the minister is: how and when will that additional funding be distributed? Please give some detail about how organisations apply and whether it will be distributed only to big organisations like the Smith Family and the Salvation Army or whether smaller, locally based NGOs can also get access to these funds.

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

I thank the honourable member for his question. The extra money that is going to be made available for financial counselling is a very welcome addition in this budget—a doubling of the budget, in fact. He is right that many of the financial counselling services that are scattered through the suburbs and country towns have been finding it very difficult to keep up with demand at a time when a lot of families and other Australians are under very significant financial pressure. We know that the more we can provide advice to people before they get themselves at the most desperate point the better. I am very pleased to be joined by my colleague the Minister for Housing. One of the services Centrelink provides is called the home advice service. This also helps families when they find themselves getting into financial difficulty. Centrelink can provide a range of different services for families to help them through those difficulties.

The member asks how this money is going to be distributed. I am in the process of writing to financial counselling services, particularly smaller ones that have just a small allocation, and trying to lift their capacity so that they can conduct their service in an ongoing and more productive way. We are trying to provide some money to them in a way that really lifts their capacity. Then we will provide some money for new services as well. Right now—actually, as soon as I get back to the office—we are in the process of helping to lift those financial counselling services. Some of them only have money for three days a week. We know those sorts of people are under very serious stress, trying to provide services to a lot of people. We will be getting those letters out very shortly.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for the Status of Women. It concerns the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and Children. I note that the government will provide $1.7 million over four years to support activities that help reduce violence against women. I ask the minister what measures will be taken within this budget—because at the moment I do not see any—that will communicate to men, women and children what support and help is available, given that the minister has indicated that the government is no longer continuing with the No Respect, No Relationship campaign.

I also want to ask about the travelling listening tour that has been appointed within this budgetary process to come to regional areas. I have a women’s refuge in my electorate that was given three days notice of a session in Melbourne, which they cannot possibly hope to get to. I would respectfully ask you if you could ask the group of experts that you spoke about in the House yesterday to visit regional areas, particularly with respect to the communication campaign.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very happy to answer this question now, and I will, but I think the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs will need to leave after this. So, if there are other questions to her, we could do those next and then come back to me afterwards if that suits people.

The member for Farrer has asked about two slightly separate issues and I am very happy to talk about both of them. The first issue is our plans to communicate with the community about the very serious issues of domestic violence, and I take it that you also mean to have sexual assault included in that communication. You have asked about the continuation of the No Respect, No Relationship campaign. The first thing that I should clarify is that the original No Respect, No Relationship campaign was not proceeded with by the previous government. In fact, it was pulled at the last minute because some judgements were made that it was not an appropriate campaign.

Our view at the time was that it was a very strong campaign because it was intrinsically based on very good international and domestic research about what really worked in changing not just community attitudes but also community behaviour when it came to domestic violence and sexual assault. That campaign was replaced with another campaign that was called Violence Against Women—Australia Says No, which was a quite different advertising campaign. The original campaign proposed a quite deep behavioural change effort. It was about working with young men, in particular, through sporting heroes, and there was much more detailed on-the-ground work in schools and local communities. That campaign was replaced with a much broader campaign that was an advertising campaign in the mass media: television, newspapers, magazines, websites and so on.

There was substantially different content between the two campaigns; there were different target groups and different aims. The Violence Against Women—Australia Says No campaign had a booklet that was sent, for example, to every Australian household, whereas the No Respect, No Relationship campaign was targeted more directly at the population groups that were most likely to be able to change behaviour when it comes to violence against women.

Petro Georgiou (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are actually romanticising that quite a lot.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Petro, I didn’t quite get that.

Petro Georgiou (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are romanticising that quite a lot.

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

The minister will ignore that interjection.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I just finish my answer, sorry. I have five minutes.

Government Member:

Can I just—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has the call. She is not outside her time.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will have another chance in a minute. So we are focusing our communications on areas where we can have the maximum impact on behaviour change. That is our intention.

We are working on a Respectful Relationships campaign with schoolchildren in particular. At the moment the Victorian government is mapping all of the different campaigns that work in schools in particular. We will be building, with our national council on violence against women, on that work to produce a resource that goes to every school—for example, to target young men and young women about building respectful relationships. We are spreading the White Ribbon Day campaign, which has been so successful in encouraging men to take responsibility for sexual assault and domestic violence, out into regional and rural areas. We are using our national council to develop, as well as the measures that we have already committed to that are on the public record, a broader strategy that allocates responsibilities to different levels of government and different bodies in our community, and that sets measurable time lines and markers of what we want to achieve in the area of domestic violence, because we know that it is going to take a substantial amount of on-the-ground work to change the attitudes of young people in particular. (Time expired)

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is my final question to the minister for families and community services. I again appreciate the spirit with which she has entered into this, her willingness to engage and also particularly her preparedness to not take five minutes for an answer. I refer the minister to the family income management measures that were part of the budget—the voluntary family income management measures that were part of the budget—and I congratulate her for that. My understanding is that the only areas where voluntary income management will be possible, at least in the 2008-09 financial year, are the Kimberley area of Western Australia and the Cannington area of outer metropolitan Perth. I have two questions: first, does she have any idea as to the time line for when voluntary family income management will be available more widely; and, second, with regard to compulsory family income management welfare quarantining for people who are not sending their kids to school and so on, when does she think that might actually start happening outside of the Northern Territory, Cape York and the Kimberley?

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

I thank the member for Warringah for his question. We just need to be a bit clear about the difference between voluntary and compulsory income management. In the case of the Kimberley area and Cannington, the suburb of Perth, the way that is going to work with the Western Australian government is that, if there are children in families in those two parts of that state where the child protection authorities think that it would be to the benefit of those children that their parents’ welfare payments are quarantined, it will not be voluntary. I just want to make that very clear. If they decide it is a good idea in the interests of the child, then it will be done. We are in the process of getting all of this ready to start in both the Kimberley and Cannington. The member for Warringah would be aware that this has not been done anywhere else in a metropolitan area before, so it is quite a complex task to get it working and get it working right.

He would also be aware that, to assist this process of income management in Western Australia and also in the Northern Territory and on Cape York, we are introducing a new debit card. This, too, is a whole new approach, one that we hope will make it easier for the people who are having their welfare payments income managed. The member would also be aware that there have been problems in the Northern Territory with some small businesses, in particular, who have been frustrated by the method of income management which we both agreed to in the past. We all know why that happened, so I am not being critical about it—it is just a fact. That is quite a complex task as well. Yesterday I spoke with Senator Ludwig, the Minister for Human Services, who has the task of getting that debit card up and running. He is very conscious of our desire to get that working.

It is going to require a different approach on Cape York; the four Cape York communities are going to have quite a different approach again. We are going to have three different income management methods being undertaken, and we will want to look at the effectiveness of them. We will obviously look at the effectiveness of the Northern Territory model in our major review, which we are about to commence. We want to have the opportunity to look at how it works in a mainstream community, which is why, with the Western Australian government’s agreement, we have chosen Cannington. This is a very new approach. We want to make sure we get it right, and we will evaluate its effectiveness. I think we are on the same page in wanting to make sure that these payments are used for the benefit of children. Fortunately, most parents do the right thing.

I think the member would also be aware that we intend to introduce legislation to enable people to volunteer to have their income managed, if that is what they think would help them. As I am sure you are aware, a Centrepay system exists. People can sign up to Centrepay, but we want to expand that opportunity for people who might want to have their income managed in a voluntary way, perhaps because they are being humbugged or not being left alone to manage their own money and because they think that this would help. Another reason might be that it helps them with budgeting. That is some legislation that will be introduced shortly.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question to the Minister for Housing concerns the Housing Affordability Fund, which provides grants on a competitive basis to state governments to reduce infrastructure costs, with savings to be passed on to homebuyers. Minister, how will the applications made to the Housing Affordability Fund by state governments be assessed in terms of their ability to reduce the cost of a first home to homebuyers? Will those who apply to the Housing Affordability Fund have to demonstrate that the cost of the final home to the first home buyer will be reduced, and on what basis will the department assess those applications?

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Housing Affordability Fund is a $512 million investment. We expect some applications from state governments but, more commonly, the applications will come from local government. They may well come from local government in partnership with particular developers. The application process will be a competitive process. We are not distributing the funds on a population basis—so much to a particular state, depending on the population of that state. We are distributing on a competitive basis.

The competitive basis is what delivers the biggest saving at the end of the day for new home buyers comparable to the Commonwealth investment that is put in. We are hoping that our investment will not just enable us to bring down one aspect of the cost of buying a new home—some of the fees and charges that local and state governments impose—but also in part drive reform of some of the processes that are adding costs along the way. An example of that is the electronic development application money that we have set aside, the $30 million, to encourage local government to not just transfer their existing system from a paper based application system to an electronic system but also, as has been done in some areas where this has been done already, simplify and streamline that development application process.

So we will see costs coming down, lower fees and charges, where we are able to help with little bits of infrastructure—we are not talking about railway lines; this fund is not designed for major infrastructure but for little bits and pieces here and there—or through driving reform that reduces the time it takes to take a property from the conceptual stage to the market stage and thus reduce the holding costs on that land and that property.

Can I also just mention very quickly to the member for Farrer that the consultations on the green paper that you asked about earlier—the one that your services would be going to would be the one in Albury-Wodonga, I imagine; is that right?

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Deputy Speaker, this is not meant to be a conversation across the table—

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

No, it is not meant to be a conversation.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

but sometimes it might make it easier to get the messages across. Minister, you may be talking about the homelessness process. I was talking about the group that you have now, that you announced yesterday, consulting on violence against women. No-one knows where they are going, but people in regional areas have been invited, with three days notice, to go to Melbourne, which is a four-hour drive.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry. I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about homelessness because you were talking about a supported accommodation assistance program, a funded service. You said you were talking about a women’s refuge. Sorry, I misunderstood for that reason. The national council on violence against women met for the first time yesterday, so we do not have a forward program for every meeting that they will be doing through the year and I do not yet have dates for broader consultations around the country. They will be going to regional areas and they will be consulting a very wide range of services, women and individuals. The thing I should also say about the council members is that the people we have asked to be part of this are people who have very wide networks already. We have deliberately gone for people who have worked in this area quite extensively and who are immersed in the work of domestic violence or sexual assault. They are people who have been campaigning for reform for a number of years, and they do have very extensive existing networks that they will be consulting along the way as well.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the time and that other members are here to question other ministers, but I have one more question for the Minister for Housing and it concerns the National Rental Affordability Scheme. What evidence do you have or what research has your department or any other department of the government done to demonstrate that the incentives that you have announced to build affordable homes in the course of the next three years will actually be taken up by developers?

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I personally have had and my department have had extensive discussions with not just developers but also superannuation funds, institutional investors and community housing providers, who are also potential beneficiaries of this scheme. We have had extensive consultations. We have released the National Rental Affordability Scheme technical paper; the feedback I have had on that is good. I am confident that there is a substantial demand in the community for this initiative. The conferences I have been to, the meetings I have had, the discussions I have had with people are overwhelmingly positive.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $2,710,381,000

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts some questions about the environmental impact assessment for the Traveston Crossing dam. I am aware that he visited the site a little while ago. Firstly, I would like him to give us some information about the timetable for the environmental impact assessment. Has he yet received the assessment from the Queensland government, and when does he expect that his own consideration of this issue under the EPBC Act will be completed?

The minister visited the site in the company of Mr Graeme Newton of Queensland Water Infrastructure, the project proponents. It has also been reported that the former opposition spokesman for the environment, Mr Albanese, also secretly visited the site in the company of the proponent, Mr Graeme Newton. I am aware that in the minister’s visit he spent a small time—he had a truncated meeting—with a few specifically invited locals, but does he intend to give equal time to those who oppose this project as he spent with the proponents of the project during his visit to the Traveston Crossing dam?

Is he aware that the Queensland Treasurer said in state parliament on 15 May that the Queensland government has already spent $500 million on the project, which is about a third of the government’s estimated cost of completing the project? Why has the Queensland government been allowed to get the project one-third completed before it has even lodged the environmental impact statement with the Australian government for consideration? Is the minister aware of repeated claims by Queensland government ministers, as reported in the media, that they have already received a wink and a nod from the Rudd Labor government that it will approve this project?

I am particularly asking for an assurance from the minister that there will be genuine integrity in the environmental impact assessment of the Traveston Crossing dam. There are serious environmental issues involved, and hopefully someone during the minister’s visit was able to explain some of those to him. The community is deeply concerned that this process is fatally flawed, especially in view of the fact that the minister does not even have the environmental impact assessment and the project is one-third built.

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

I will go to the questions put by the member in a moment, but I first want to present the 2008-09 Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts portfolio and the Climate Change portfolio appropriations to the Main Committee of the House of Representatives. In doing that, I want to point out that the 2008 federal budget underpins the government’s comprehensive election commitments relating to climate change, to the management of water resources, to the protection of our unique environmental assets and to the setting of new directions for the arts. It is entirely appropriate that we should debate these bills on World Environment Day.

On climate change, recognised as one of the greatest social and economic challenges of our time, the government’s approach is built around three priorities: reducing our emissions, adapting to the impacts of climate change that we cannot avoid and helping to shape a global solution. Through this budget, the government has delivered $2.3 billion in funding for climate change. Central to this approach is the allocation of $37.3 million for the design and implementation of an emissions trading scheme.

The government is also fully committed to delivering to householders the ability to save money on household energy bills. We are committed to providing a one-stop green shop to link households, schools and small businesses with access to energy- and water-efficiency advice through a Green Loans program. The government additionally is committed to ensuring that there is protection for our unique environment.

Our biodiversity, landscapes and our special places are also under threat from long-established impacts of land clearing, urban development, pollution and unsustainable use of natural resources. Through Caring for Our Country the government will spend $2.2 billion over the next five years to deliver an environment that is better protected, better managed and more resilient in the face of climate change. Central to this is a $200 million Great Barrier Reef Rescue Plan and $100 million for a community Coast Care program as well as funding to expand Indigenous protected areas and the National Reserve System.

Water scarcity continues to be a major national challenge for Australia. We recognise that water shortages pose a serious threat to our economy and way of life, and the government is responding to the water crisis through the $12.9 billion Water for the Future plan. The budget includes $1.5 billion in new funding under Water for the Future to deliver on the election commitments; $1 billion for the National Urban Water and Desalination Plan, which will invest in major water infrastructure projects in larger cities and will support desalination, water recycling and stormwater harvesting projects; the $254.8 million National Water Security plan for cities and towns, that will invest in more efficient water infrastructure, including stormwater capture projects, water recycling and water treatment plants as well as refurbishing older pipes and water systems; and the $250 million National Rainwater and Greywater Initiative, providing rebates of up to $500 to households for rainwater tanks and greywater facilities. We have also brought forward significant levels of funding in 2008-09 under our $12.9 billion Water for the Future plan. This is a government that is delivering on its election promises and delivering on the desire of Australians to see robust national leadership in the areas of climate change, water and protecting our national environment.

In relation to the question put to me, I want to point out to the member that the decision I make on Traveston Dam will only be made after a full and thorough consideration of all the relevant information that emerges during the assessment process. As the member knows, the dam is being assessed under the EPBC Act 1999 as well as by the Queensland government under relevant state legislation. The Commonwealth has a bilateral agreement with the Queensland government, and the coordinator-general will prepare an assessment report for my consideration. In making my decision I will ensure that I have considered the Queensland government’s assessment report in accordance with my responsibilities under the EPBC Act and I will carefully consider the impacts of the dam on matters of national environmental significance as well as on relevant economic and social matters. And I will consider all other relevant information on the impacts of the proposal. That will include views that are brought forward by the community—such as the result of independent reviews, public submissions from the community which the member has mentioned, and the relevant recommendations of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee inquiry into additional water supplies for south-east Queensland.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Heritage, the Arts and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a series of questions for the shadow minister. A core of the budget was the $2.247 billion for the rollout of Caring for Our Country, which is the rebadging and reworking of the old Natural Heritage Trust and National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality. Of course, under the coalition government we put record funds into those two programs, which extended over some 10 years. We are now very concerned, and so we want answers about how Australians are going to deal with the chaos and job cuts that are flowing on from the fact that you have cut 20 per cent of the funding of Landcare. Already a number of people right across Australia have contacted me saying, ‘Our jobs as Landcare facilitators have gone,’ and 4,000 voluntary groups now feel that they cannot do the work that they have done for 25 years.

The Envirofund is gone and the Environmental Stewardship Program is gone. These programs are not funded. There is a 40 per cent slash in funding to the catchment management bodies which we put in place or supplemented, to manage what we called the Natural Heritage Trust and NAP.

We understand from your budget that they are also to manage your Caring for our Country program. You have slashed their budgets by 40 per cent. You have said that there will be perhaps a contestable component in the future which they can bid into to replace some of that lost funding. These catchment management bodies are now begging to know when that contestable project or program will begin, how they will tender, and what components of work they may do. They also want to know whether the old state arrangements will continue to apply—where we had matched grants, matched funding in the case of the salinity program, and in kind support with the Natural Heritage Trust. Has that been resolved? If not, when will it be resolved?

Moving on to national parks, we are very concerned to know that the Kakadu park in particular is not going to have fees introduced and we want to know whether the about-to-be proclaimed new national parks at Gregory—the two parks in Gregory plus the new reserves, which are now before the House as a bill to be declared—will attract fees, given that it seems to be a new move for this government to replace fees on Kakadu.

Let me move on to the very serious business of Green Corps. It was an absolute icon of youth participation in environmental works, a traineeship program. It had been in place for 10 years. It is to be turned into a Work for the Dole program under this government. We would like to know, in your environment portfolio, how you are going to replace that program, given the work it did and the inspiration it provided to young people. As I said, it is a 10-year-old program with hundreds of thousands of participants who have worked right across Australia.

Let me just add to this mix: the Murray-Darling Basin $10 billion, 10-point plan. You have now expanded that under the budget by several billion, and on the surface that looks to be great. Our problem is we want to know—in fact, we have to know—why or how you are going to fund the on-farm water saving measures which were integral to finding real water; that is, water that could be delivered immediately to the environment of the Murray-Darling Basin system. The on-farm water saving measures have not been mentioned out loud by this government since it came into office. Where have they gone, please? We need to know.

We also want to know how you are going to target the overallocated water, which is mostly in New South Wales on their rivers as diversion licences. We used to call them sleepers and dozers. They are no longer being targeted by the buyback moneys—the $50 million initially, the extra billions you have put in place. That is a critical problem for the Murray-Darling Basin. How are you as the minister in this area, along with Minister Penny Wong, going to deal with the overallocated water problems, given that we are told that the buyback is mostly for high-security and lower security water but not from the overallocated areas?

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

I thank the honourable member for her question and I will go to some of the matters that she has raised, starting with Caring for our Country. As the member knows, the Caring for our Country program is a significant program of reform which brings leadership, accountability and an integrated approach to natural resource management, which was sorely lacking in the previous programs that the coalition, when in government, were delivering. I point out to the member that in the first five years $636 million will be provided as secure baseline funding for regional NRM organisations, and additional funding of up to $75 million will be available to help overcome transitional problems. I have to say that, having met with the catchment management groups in Melbourne, as we did recently, and having gone through with those groups in some detail the government’s proposed approach to natural resource management delivery and the provision of secure baseline funding and additional contestable funding, we found a very high level of support from the community.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Heritage, the Arts and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dr Stone interjecting

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

The member is making interjections across the floor, but I just have to put on record my concern that the coalition have to actually use accuracy in relation to their comments about these programs. What is the point of engaging in a process of discussion about a program that this government has brought forward if there is not a willingness on the part of the coalition to actually produce criticisms which have substance or content?

The member has made a number of inaccurate and misleading public statements about Caring for our Country, and we have heard some of them today. For example, in the past, the member has said that Landcare has been cut by 20 per cent. That is simply not correct. Landcare has been allocated funding of $189.2 million over the first five years of Caring for our Country. Savings of $1.5 million over five years reflect the efficiencies to be gained by delivering Landcare as part of an integrated program. I say to members opposite: when you hear about savings and efficiencies, it is no wonder that you are calling out from that side of the House, because the Australian National Audit Office was damning of your performance when it came to the delivery of the Natural Heritage Trust—absolutely damning. If we look at the level of ecological and natural landscape health across the continent in the period of time that you were in government, when you had access to all the funds in the world to drive a successful natural resource management program, and when we look at the indices of health as a consequence of that, we see that not only was it unaccountable but it actually did not deliver any results either.

The second thing I want to address is the claim that has been made about cutting red tape. We are cutting red tape. Decisions on Caring for our Country will be shared between the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. We are providing a streamlined approach to decision making. We intend to provide greater efficiencies by sharing decisions on Caring for our Country and natural resource management delivery.

Additional to that, I want to point out that Landcare and the Environmental Stewardship Program have been consolidated into Caring for our Country, along with the Natural Heritage Trust and Working on Country. The reason for that is that we have identified six national priorities which we believe ought to be the appropriate delivery focus for this program. To have six national environment priorities means that we have actually got some focus in the program which was never there before. I have every expectation that we will have a rollout of substantial programs which will be taking place—

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Heritage, the Arts and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You call them efficiencies. We call them cuts.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would ask that you draw the member’s attention to the fact that I actually still have a period of time to speak.

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

I will decide that.

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

I do not seek to direct you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, nor will you.

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

The government provided all regional bodies with 60 per cent of their historic funding levels for 2008-09 and, in addition, each of the 56 regional bodies has recently been advised of their share of the 2008-09 transition support funding, totalling $31.8 million. I say this: the government recognise the government work that is done by catchment management bodies and natural resource management bodies right around the country. We recognise it and we are actually providing them with a substantial opportunity for focus—(Time expired)

Louise Markus (Greenway, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that the government claims in the budget that it understands that climate change means that we need to manage our water supplies better and also given that the Hawkesbury-Nepean River supplies over 90 per cent of Sydney’s drinking water and supports the generation of around 70 per cent of Sydney’s income, will the government honour the commitment by the prior government to deliver $132.5 million in funding to address the issues of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River? A yes or no would suffice. What does the Australian government plan to do to tackle the challenges faced by the Hawkesbury-Nepean River system in the next 18 months?

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

I thank the honourable member for her question. I am not intimately familiar with the previous promises that were made by the coalition when they were in government in respect of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River system. I am happy to come back to you on the question of detail that you ask. But I would make one observation, and it is this: for nearly 11 years we had significant inaction on the part of the Commonwealth in relation to providing the necessary support for restoring our river systems to health in the Murray-Darling Basin and around the country as well. I am happy to take the question on notice.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is extraordinary to come here and listen to members opposite persisting with the pretence that the coalition actually cared about the environment and persisting with the pretence that they are still in government.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Members on my left will desist from interjecting. The member for Isaacs has the call.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to be here on World Environment Day to make some comments about the environmental measures that are contained in these appropriation bills. It was also extraordinary to hear from the Leader of the National Party not a question or a comment—

Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is question time for the ministers and the opposition to ask questions. There is time in the adjournment debates to make statements.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Gilmore, I have ruled on that point of order. This is not a question time, but the statements must be directed to the minister’s relevant portfolio.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. If it were question time, we would not have heard a five-minute speech from the member for Murray. We have not heard anything to do with appropriation bills from the Leader of the National Party.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Isaacs has the call and he will direct his statements to the relevant portfolio before the chair.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am endeavouring to do that, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I am endeavouring to listen.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the National Party, in his comments, directed not one single word to the appropriation bill that the minister in the Main Committee is responsible for but rather persisted with an attack on the Queensland state government—not content with having done so a few days ago in the House on a notice of motion.

The comments that I would direct to the environmental aspects of the appropriation bill are to draw attention to the fact that this budget places care for the environment, care for our land and care for our country at the centre of national policy—and it could not provide a starker contrast with what the previous government was engaged in. The community was offered two very distinct approaches at the last federal election, and it has made the choice—and the choice in the environmental area was a stark one.

In the international arena, we had a choice between the Liberal Party, which stubbornly refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol and acted as a spoiler on international climate change negotiations and the Rudd Labor government, whose first act was the ratification of the Kyoto protocol, which has given Australia a seat at the international negotiating table on climate change, where Australia is going to be able to play a significant role in the future—a role that was denied it by the actions of the former government. In terms of science, we had a choice between the former Prime Minister, who said that a five-degree increase in temperature would be, to use his words, ‘uncomfortable for some’, and a Rudd Labor government which accepts the science, a Rudd Labor government that has listened to the experts and is acting accordingly.

On emissions targets there was a very sharp choice between a Liberal Party with no targets for reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions and a Rudd Labor government which is now committed to reducing Australia’s emissions by 60 per cent of 2000 levels by 2050. On emissions trading, the Liberal Party’s pre-dawn conversion to a scheme the previous Prime Minister had spent years blocking then grudgingly moved to accepting a start date of 2012, while the Rudd Labor government—(Time expired)

Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this afternoon to ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts some very serious questions about matters that are affecting regional and rural people—

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: it seems to me that the time for this debate expired, under the standing orders, at 12.30.

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

No, it is not an automatic adjournment, as I understand it. There was not an automatic adjournment, but I am advised that there was some agreement that there would be an adjournment—but it is not an automatic adjournment. That was in the hands of the whips, not in the hands of the Speaker in this regard. I call the member for Hume, who I have given the call to.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. My understanding is that this part of the consideration has been divided into two and, as a consequence, there will be a second opportunity for members opposite to put questions to us at that point and that we were going to adjourn.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I respect the minister’s comments, but I am in the hands of the chamber. I understood that that would have to be an agreement between the relevant people on duty from both sides of the chamber.

Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, it was agreed upon—a 12.30 adjournment.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Therefore, the member for Hume does not have the call and Deputy Speaker Burke will be returning, because I know that I have first call in the adjournment.

Consideration, by leave, adjourned.