Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I suggest that it may 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

Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government Portfolio

Health and Ageing Portfolio

Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio (Foreign Affairs)

Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio (Trade)

Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts Portfolio

Human Services Portfolio

Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Portfolio

Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Portfolio

Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Portfolio

Defence Portfolio (Defence)

Defence Portfolio (Veterans’ affairs)

Attorney-General’s Portfolio

Immigration and Citizenship Portfolio

Resources, Energy and Tourism Portfolio

Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Portfolio

Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Portfolio

Finance and Deregulation Portfolio

Treasury Portfolio

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, I will allow that course.

Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $7,112,296,000

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that education has been allotted about one hour in this debate on appropriations. Usually the minister likes to respond to a series of questions and so forth, and on the opposition side we plan to have me, the minister representing the shadow minister for employment, Michael Keenan, and the shadow minister for child care, Sharman Stone, asking questions. Then there may well be some backbench members in particular seats who also wish to put questions to the minister in this section of the debate on appropriations. So that is how we propose to do it. It is possible that the government also has people who want to put questions to the minister. She can respond as we go along, but I think that in the past she has often waited until the end, and it is up to her to decide whether she answers as we go.

The number of questions the opposition would like to ask—and I have a series of them—is 13. They deal with schools, the EIF, the Rural Hardship Fund, TEQSA and trade training centres. Firstly, can the minister explain how frequently she has met with Brad Orgill and whether he has provided her with any examples of waste or mismanagement since the task force was formed on 12 April?

Secondly, how much is Mr Orgill being paid in his capacity as head of the implementation task force? Thirdly, in her media release of 12 April, the minister said the task force would:

… employ or contract investigators with a range of skills in building, design construction and safety, quantity surveying, architecture, financial audit and law.

Can the minister advise how many financial auditors or forensic accountants have been contracted to or employed by the task force and how many quantity surveyors have been contracted to or employed by the task force?

Fourthly, can the minister provide the opposition with access to the contractual documentation for each individual BER project for the following states: Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania, Western Australia, the Northern Territory and the ACT, and if not, why not?

Fifthly, given that the Prime Minister promised that, under the government’s computers in schools program, students would be provided with high-speed broadband access by the end of 2011, can the minister provide an update on when the computers are due to be connected at 100 megabits per second fibre broadband in order to keep the promise and how many computers have been connected thus far at 100 megabits per second?

Sixthly, can the minister explain the rationale behind the review of the National School Chaplaincy Program, which began under the previous government? A previous survey indicates that it has the strong support of 97 per cent of school principals who have engaged a chaplain. They have recognised the benefits of the program for their communities, so why is it only funded until 2011, given that it has proven to be so successful in its current form?

In the minister’s media release of 13 May 2008 on higher education, she said of the Education Investment Fund:

The government will also allocate funds from the 2007-08 and 2008-09 surpluses, along with money from the higher education endowment fund to create a new $11 billion Education Innovation Fund, to support higher education and vocational education and training.

How can the minister justify, in terms of this year’s budget, that there is no evidence that a top-up of the $5 billion has occurred as promised?

What is the current status of the $20 million Rural Tertiary Hardship Fund that was negotiated between the minister and the Australian Greens during the youth allowance debate, given that it is due to come into operation in January next year? What form will it take, who will be eligible to apply and what sort of assistance will be offered to students? Or is the fund just more evidence of policy on the run without any thought about what the fund would actually do?

In terms of TEQSA, I refer to concerns about the proposed internal working structures of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, the time lines for the establishment of the agency and the adequacy of funding for the role it is to be tasked with. (Extension of time granted) Is the TEQSA another example of Labor making significant commitments but being shambolic in their implementation?

With respect to the Trade Training Centres in Schools Program, how many trade training centres are currently open and operational from the first round of the program? How many trade training centres are currently open and operational from the second round of the program? Of the currently open and operational projects, how many are in non-government schools? How many trade training centres from round 2 are operational and, of these, how many are attached to non-government schools?

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Has the minister seen the statistics in the weekend Age on the shortage of school places and school classrooms in the inner city? How has this affected school places in inner Melbourne? Is this demographic drift affecting children and classrooms in other cities? What is the effect of the government’s existing programs, including Building the Education Revolution, on this problem of shortage of school spaces in the inner city? Furthermore, can the minister outline the importance of investing in teacher quality? What is the number of teachers that the government proposes to receive such extra education—higher education or further education? And what is the aim of the program—what do we hope that teachers will emerge from such programs with? I will leave my questions on child care for the appropriate place later.

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

I rise to address some of the questions that have been asked in this debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011. I indicate, of course, that the debate on the appropriation bill is supposed to be a debate on the appropriation bill. Most of the questions put to me by the shadow minister do not really relate to appropriations in the budget papers or in budget announcements or to new programs in the budget papers.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Pyne interjecting

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

At some point the opposition might want to decide whether they want to listen to the answers or just sit and shout. If they want to just sit and shout then we will leave them to it, but if they want to listen to the answers then we expect them to listen. Amid the characteristic disregard for any of the details or the deep concerns about education in the community being shown by that behaviour, let me now respond to the shadow minister.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

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

Order! The member for Sturt would assist the order of the House if he would allow the minister to be heard in silence.

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

The shadow minister raised some questions about Mr Orgill and the Building the Education Revolution Implementation Taskforce. He raised some questions particularly about payment. That is a matter that is dealt with by the Remuneration Tribunal—that is, it is dealt with independently.

17:44:40

He raised some questions about the identity of the people serving on the task force. This was actually the subject of quite extensive recent publicity, including in the Australian newspaper, but we are obviously happy to supply to the shadow minister—should he have missed the media reports—the details of the people who are assisting Mr Orgill. These include people with quantity surveying expertise and people with, literally, a lifetime of experience in building and construction.

The documents within the reach of the task force—I have answered this question in the House of Representatives—are defined by our national partnership agreements that support Building the Education Revolution. Mr Orgill is able to use the powers of the Commonwealth to get all documents necessary that are held by education authorities to assist his inquiries. The task force has already analysed all complaints that the BER national coordinator has received since the inception of the program as well as 40 or so complaints that have been sent directly to the task force through their website. On the basis of this, the task force has already formulated a program of visits to schools to benchmark BER projects across jurisdictions and to investigate complaints. The task force will be producing a report in August. I have met personally with Mr Orgill and I have indicated to him personally—and have indicated publicly—that should Mr Orgill wish to produce any early recommendations the government is all ears for those recommendations and will respond to them as quickly as possible after they are received.

We can provide the shadow minister with details of the task force members, obviously, but he may have seen the report in the Australian newspaper on 3 June following the announcement by Mr Orgill of other task force members. There are two deputy chairs. One is David Chandler, a former chief executive, director, adviser and chairman in public and private sectors. He received an Order of Australia in 1989 for services to the construction industry. He owns a consulting practice known as Resolution Services Group. The other deputy chair is Mr Alex Buchan. He is the Senior Director of Altus Page Kirkland. He has 15 years of experience and is an expert in selection of procurement and delivery methods for large construction projects. The task force is supported by an advisory panel, including Leonie Trimper, the head of the Primary Principals Association; Uschi Schreiber, a Managing Partner of Ernst & Young; Michael Heenan a principal of Allen Jack+Cottier, Alan Duncan who is the director of a quantity surveying firm—(Time expired)

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a series of three questions and I suppose in keeping with the way this has worked it might just be easier for me to run through them than have the minister respond, as seems to be the process. On the ABC’s 7.30 Report on 30 April 2007, prior to the setting up of Labor’s Fair Work Australia, Kevin Rudd said:

I will not be prime minister of this country and appoint some endless tribe of trade union officials to staff or ex trade union officials to staff the key positions in this body.

My first question is: how does the minister justify this comment in light of the fact that six of the last seven appointees to Fair Work Australia are ex-union employees? Is this another one of Labor’s broken promises? I am happy to run through the list of the minister’s appointments for her: John Ryan, a former Senior National Industrial Officer with the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association; Michelle Bissett, a Senior Industrial Officer with the Australian Council of Trade Unions; Julius Roe, former National President of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union; Anne Gooley, a lawyer and former senior official with the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance; Danny Cloghan, former Secretary of the WA Prisons Union and long-time adviser to former Labor MP Jim McGinty. The only person that has been appointed to Fair Work Australia—contrary to the Prime Minister’s promise prior to the last election—that does not have a union background is Peter Hampton, who comes from SafeWork South Australia.

My second question is: Minister, you promised that Fair Work Australia would approve enterprise agreements within seven days. This has now blown out to 17 weeks. How do you justify this or is this just another of Labor’s broken promises? My third question is: what has the minister done to address the plight of teenage workers Matthew Spencer and Letitia Harrison at Terang in country Victoria, who have lost their afterschool jobs because of Labor’s new minimum hour laws? Why did you promise these teenagers that you would ensure that they were spoken to directly by various government departments when we now know that they have not been contacted at all? Is this just another broken promise?

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

I will continue addressing the questions as asked. To finish the advisory panel, I think I was up to Doug Jones, who is a construction lawyer from Clayton Utz, and Eric Goodwin, who is a non-executive director of Eureka Funds Management and was formerly with Lend Lease. I think on any rational assessment that is a very high calibre set of appointments and a very high calibre panel.

I was asked about chaplains and the reason for the review. I believe the chaplains program has done and is doing a lot of good. I think chaplains are very valued by schools and I want to see us continue to support that assistance to schools. But because the chaplains program was run on an application based process, we have seen differential take up. If you analyse the take up between different states in Australia it is quite different. There is not a fair distribution, if I can put it that way.

If we analyse country and city there are some concerns. I think there is some evidence too that if you go through an application based process sometimes the leadership of the schools with the really acute needs are already under such pressure that they find it difficult to intersect with an application based process and might therefore miss the round. For those kinds of reasons we have determined that to ensure that there is a fair system and way of working that meets all needs, we are reviewing the chaplains program. We obviously have the funding. It is secure. Any fear campaign that the opposition members are raising about the funding is demonstrably incorrect. The funding is there to support chaplains as we work through some of these questions.

On the issue of the Education Investment Fund, the shadow minister might note that we are in the process of announcing some successful applicants from that fund. It continues to support strategic projects in universities and in vocational education and training. I direct his attention to some announcements made by the government as recently as last Saturday and last Friday.

On the rural hardship fund, the shadow minister is well aware that in order to secure passage of this legislation, which was much delayed, we needed to have conversations with senators and the opposition. We did have those conversations. We reached agreement with the opposition and with Greens senators, including an agreement about the $20 million hardship fund. The best way of distributing that to ensure maximum fairness is being worked through. That will be the aim of the fund, which is entirely appropriate.

On the issue of TEQSA, I must admit that my understanding is that the shadow minister is on some grand frolic of his own about this. We are deregulating a system so it can be demand driven. If you are deregulating a system so it can be demand driven you need to have strong quality assurance. I would have thought that was obvious to any student of public policy. I believe the shadow minister has announced that the view of the opposition is that Australian universities in the top 100 in one of the international rankings need not be regulated by TEQSA. They are obviously Group of Eight universities, and the Group of Eight has made it very clear that they do not support the shadow minister’s view. In my discussions with people in the university sector there is grand bemusement about this approach from the shadow minister: it is viewed as laughable, eccentric and strange. I think that is the explanation for TEQSA.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Keenan interjecting

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

Before you insult a number of vice-chancellors, can I refer you to the Group of Eight’s public statement on this matter.

On the question of teacher quality cuts—and I thank the member for Melbourne Ports for asking me—we are investing in teacher quality, including bringing the best and brightest graduates into teaching. We are investing in paying the best teachers more to go to the classrooms that need them the most. We are investing in more independence and autonomy for public school principals. The threat to that investment is of course from the Leader of the Opposition, who would cut all of this funding should he become Prime Minister of this country. That would be a fundamental attack on the quality of schooling in this country, meaning that some of these reform measures and drives—and I note the Deputy Speaker is from Western Australia—including empowering public school principals to be the principals of independent schools—(Time expired)

Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Newcastle.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor had their turn. Julia took it.

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

I am sorry. As I understand it, it is one after the other.

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

Ms Grierson interjecting

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Pyne interjecting

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

It would assist the order if the member for Newcastle could resume her seat. I apologise. I call the member for Murray.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education and Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. In the budget the government allocated $81.9 million to implement the new quality standards for early childhood education and child care. Part of that, we are told, was for the first national ratings system for childhood education services, we presume; early childhood education was included. Given childcare centres and preschools are already accredited for subsidy purposes, how will this new rating system differ? How are providers being consulted on this? How often will the rating system be updated? What criteria will be used to rank the services? Will there be any appeal mechanisms? Where a service is ranked as poor will they be assisted in that service with extra finances or other support to improve their service standards? How much of the $81.9 million is to be spent on the new rating system—in other words, the new My School for preschools and child care—and when will this new rating system commence?

In Budget Paper No. 2 under the ‘National quality agenda for early childhood education and care’ national partnership implementation, we are told the government will provide $130.4 million over four years to help support parents with the introduction of the new National Quality Agenda. We all know that the new National Quality Agenda is going to increase staff numbers in comparison with numbers of those in their care. It will require higher qualifications and smaller groups, and the estimations of increases in costs are up to $20 per day, particularly for the younger children. You have said in the budget you are going to spend $130.4 million over four years, in particular to help support parents. You go on to say in the budget:

The introduction of new national standards, which include improving child care ratios, will lead to increased Government assistance through the Child Care Rebate.

Given that statement, I would like you to explain why we were told very recently that the cap for the childcare rebate is being reduced. In fact, it has now been reduced to $7,500 and will no longer be indexed, for a period of four years. That seems to be in direct contradiction to your statement in the budget. We also want to know why, given you have said you are going to help parents with the increased costs of child care, you have abolished the start-up grants of $1,500 for family day care and the $5,000 start-up grants for family day care in the rural and regional sector.

We also want to know why through your minister, Minister Ellis, you have started to accredit part-time family day care for periods of only six months. These part-time long day care centres particularly exist in rural and remote areas. As you can understand, the six-months accreditation quite clearly means these centres are having difficulty attracting staff. They have a great deal of difficulty even with a start-up if they are going to get only six months accreditation at a time. In relation to early childhood education—I might have to continue this later—you made the statement that your government would provide universal access to early childhood education for every child of up to 15 hours in an accredited centre with a qualified person in the year before they start school.

Minister, I want to know: what does that really mean? Does it mean free? Does it mean for everyone in that category? Does it mean that for a place like Koondrook preschool centre, which closed the other day, you are going to rush out and reopen it? What does this ‘universal access to early childhood education’ mean? Out there in real constituent land they are confused because, with the stresses of the fees in early childhood education in some states and the drought and other difficulties, preschool centres are no longer able to afford to stay open, but you have claimed universal access is your commitment.

I am also very concerned about your commitment to how these centres are going to operate in the future and when the support for upgrades of qualifications is going to flow through. Quite obviously, in the area of early childhood education, there are centres that were previously child care providers wanting to move into early childhood education. When are these centres going to be able to access support for upgrading qualifications of their staff?

Let me also say that we are concerned with your data. It is very confusing. Can you give me a breakdown of exactly what you are going to spend category by category in the new quality standards support? I mentioned the amount of $81.9 million. That was to be spent, we are told, on helping with implementation of the new quality standards, but then we have a separate budget item of $130.4 million and it comes under implementation. Can we have a breakdown, please, of exactly what is included in those amounts? Quite clearly the childcare sector and early childhood education depends on adequate support—(Time expired)

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

My question to the minister goes to needs based funding. It has been an issue for so long in schools: having needs identified, responded to and resourced. I am pleased to say that in my electorate now eight schools are receiving low-socioeconomic assistance, but it has taken a long time. It is so much appreciated by those schools. Four schools are receiving literacy and numeracy funding. Can you tell us, Minister, the impact this needs based approach—this identifying needs and funding on needs—is having around the country and how that will be maintained?

I would also like to mention a recent sod-turning at the Shortland wetlands—an international Ramsar wetland—where I was very pleased to have the director of Catholic education for the Hunter Region as well as NSW DET do a sod-turn for a partnerships project. The overwhelming view was that this could never have happened before. To see schools partnering with an international Ramsar wetlands to enhance the educational opportunities for all children in our region was something, certainly, that they were celebrating. What has been happening around that area, how have partnerships been forged and what will the benefits of those be?

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Emerging Trade Markets) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to ask the minister about the BER program and in particular the businesses in the central western part of New South Wales that were affected by the collapse of the construction company TCT Construction, a major subcontractor engaged as part of the BER program. As the minister is aware, there are bills owing to contractors, in particular in the Dubbo area, of approximately $1.7 million due to the collapse of TCT. In particular, Jarrod Kennedy from Jarrod Kennedy Welding is owed $60,000; Chris Haynes, a businessman from Coolah, is owed approximately $20,000—and there are many others. These businesses are in serious financial difficulty. I would like to ask the minister what she personally is doing to make sure that the interests of these businesses are taken care of. They believe that because they were working for the federal government they were indeed secure and that in fact they would be paid. I would ask the minister if she could respond to the concerns of those businesses.

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

Just trying to take in turn and stay up with the order, I think the last question asked of me by the shadow minister was about trade training centres. Let me answer that. There are 147 projects underway to construct or refurbish trade training centres; 22 trade training centre projects have been completed; 42 school sites are delivering new trade qualifications as a result of trades training centre funding, benefiting 70 schools. By the end of 2010 approximately 68 trade training centre projects benefiting 173 schools are scheduled to be completed.

This is a 10-year program running exactly on time and exactly as promised, despite the continued misrepresentations of the opposition to the contrary. The great threat to this program is from the cutbacks promised by the Leader of the Opposition which mean that 1,800 schools will miss out on the opportunity to get a trade training centre. In addition, if the prospect of missing out was not bad enough, around 300 schools were promised money last November and they would have that money ripped out of their hands if the Leader of the Opposition becomes Prime Minister and implements that cut. The cuts he proposes will rip money out of the hands of 180 schools. If there is any shred of decency about the opposition, they will name those schools so schools know who will have the money ripped out of their hands after it was promised. Until the opposition does that, we will raise with every school the likelihood that they will be the ones to lose that money, to have it ripped out of their hands.

I am asked about Fair Work Australia appointments. It is a somewhat interesting question. Let me remind the Committee of the appointments made to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission by the former Howard government.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How is this remotely relevant?

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

I think this is an important backdrop to the consideration of appointments. The former Howard government appointed 19 men and one woman. Why was it that across almost 12 years in industrial relations only one out of 20 appointments was a woman? Why was it that the Howard government when in office formed the view that women were too incompetent or too underqualified to take these appointments? I think that is a question working Australian women would be asking themselves. Of the appointments, only two had union backgrounds, one had a government background and the rest largely had employer backgrounds, including four former Liberal staffers. That is interesting—mates appointments.

On the question of who has been appointed to Fair Work Australia under this government, 19 appointments have been made so far—12 dual appointments and seven as a result of advertisements. They comprise 13 men and six women. It is a far better record than that of those opposite. Nine have a union background, four have an employer background, three have a legal background and three have a government background. We obviously want high-quality applicants to respond to the advertisements. Each appointment that has been made has been recommended by my department. I suggest to those opposite that if they are genuinely concerned about this matter then they should be encouraging high-quality applicants.

I am more than happy to answer the childcare questions, but I may need a little additional time to do that so I alert people to that now. Let me say to the shadow minister—and I know the shadow minister has been recently appointed to her job—that there is any amount of information in the public domain on the questions she has asked. The government has been through a huge consultation process on the quality agenda involving regulatory impact statements and COAG negotiations. Any amount of documentation is available and I would refer her to it. But she has made a completely incorrect statement about the effect of the quality agenda on childcare fees, and I do not want Australian parents to listen to that and be concerned about that because it is simply not right. (Time expired)

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too want to raise some questions to the minister in relation to the Primary Schools for the 21st Century program. I believe I first wrote to the minister in about March last year to reflect the concerns put to me by several members of my community from within the building trade, the primary school sector and the school councils. I do thank the minister because, on most occasions, she responds very promptly to my correspondence. Though some other ministers are nowhere near as prompt, I do get responses. I am sorry that the paper warfare probably will continue in the future.

There were several concerns presented to the minister at that time, and many of them have come to fruition in relation to the valuation for money of this program. The schools in Gippsland that I have had much to do with are very concerned about the way this program was rolled out in terms of the template designs which were forced upon them and which were not necessarily what they wanted. In the Victorian sense, and certainly in the Gippsland sense, many of the schools had not done a master planning process to the extent that probably some of the independent and Catholic schools had and so they probably were not as well placed when the time came to roll out this program in the manner and time frames forced upon the school communities. I do not believe we necessarily got the value for money that we could have received if we had had a little more control of the funding at the local level. That has been a real concern for the state schools in my electorate.

The actual contracting process and the way in which the projects were packaged together also created some very serious anomalies in Gippsland. One of the most obvious ones was the Bairnsdale situation, where we had two Bairnsdale building firms given the opportunity to tender for three jobs. The three jobs were located in Foster, San Remo and Wonthaggi. Each of those towns is two or three hours away from Bairnsdale. The two Bairnsdale firms involved were not given the opportunity to tender for jobs in the state school system in their immediate area. Naturally, they did not even bother tendering for the jobs in Foster, San Remo and Wonthaggi and waited until the local Catholic primary school had jobs available for them to tender for, and they went through that process.

One of the other areas I want to raise with the minister relates to the issue of portable buildings. I believe many of my smaller communities could have leveraged off far more results for their school communities if—

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me, member for Gippsland, would you stop for a minute. We cannot hear.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will talk a bit louder. Certainly in our smaller communities there is no doubt that having access to that money along the lines of the Investing in our Schools Program and the National School Pride Program, where the school councils had control of the money and, particularly those small school councils, were able to leverage off through their local parents and friends associations. What we have instead are demountable buildings on the backs of trucks being dropped off at some of these primary schools and, quite frankly, it has not been satisfactory.

The common remarks I have been getting from the school principals are that they have been happy to get some money but have been bitterly disappointed with the lack of value and the lack of transparency. Many of the schools have been worried about speaking out because they have basically been threatened by the departmental staff with, ‘You don’t want to go back down the pecking order, do you?’ I believe they have been intimidated into not speaking out on every issue they wanted to raise.

I have a couple of specific examples where people have spoken out and have contacted my office. I want to relate to the minister the experience of the Bairnsdale West Primary School, whose principal, Doug Vickers, wrote in his school newsletter quite recently:

Bairnsdale West decided that, to maximise its allocation of $2 million, we needed to design our own building rather than by a state government template. We were not encouraged to follow this method. However, our end result, our plans which have now gone to tender indicate that we’ll get a building which contains a canteen, foyer area, toilets, full-size basketball court with seating and a music room for $1 million less than the template design which was taken up by Lucknow Primary School.

Lucknow Primary School is about four kilometres away. My questions to you, Minister, really relate to the issue of delivering value for money.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Danby interjecting

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It did not work. The Lucknow Primary School has paid $1 million more for something that Bairnsdale West Primary School was able to achieve. If you think that worked, you are not much of a genius, pal. Minister, do you now agree that we have not got value for money in many of these schools? If we had our time again, would we give more control to the state school councils themselves? Do you acknowledge that this one-size-fits-all approach with these template designs has resulted in some very poor outcomes for some of the regional state schools?

I want to speak about one primary school and the issue of demountable buildings. I recently visited the Gormandale Primary School, which had a demountable building delivered in February. When I visited the school last week, I was surprised to find that the school has no access to the building. There is no ramp and there are no steps. There is a gaping hole between the building and the existing pathway. There are two stumps under the building that do not have bolts connected to them and one broken concrete pad. The workmanship is quite shoddy. The reason I am surprised is that, on the government’s website, it is said that the project is complete. The power has not been connected but the project is complete, according to the government’s website. I ask the minister whether she can understand why there is a lot of anger and frustration in regional communities that we have not got value for money for taxpayers’ dollars.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister please explain the Teach for Australia program that is underway in Victorian schools?

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

Given we are starting to move towards the latter half, it might suit if I keep responding to questions—and I will respond to that one. I was addressing some of the questions from the shadow minister covering child care and early learning and I did want to correct a statement she made about the costs of the quality agenda. The claims made by her are simply incorrect. The modelling undertaken by Access Economics for COAG shows that the reforms are expected to result in an average out-of-pocket cost increase for a family on $80,000 of 57c per week in 2010-11—

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education and Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not what the sector is saying.

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

The shadow minister is now shaking her head. If she wants to produce alternative modelling, she may. These are not my figures. Let me just clarify this for her: this is Access Economics modelling. It is 57c a week for a family on $80,000 in 2010-11 rising to $8.67 per week by 2014-15 for one child who attends full-time, long day care—that is, 50 hours per week.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education and Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dr Stone interjecting

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

The shadow minister is saying to me that that is absurd. I am giving her the Access Economics modelling figures. If she wants to have an argument with Access Economics, I suggest she get them on the phone. She might want to then look at how many times the Howard government used Access Economics for modelling before she gets into this debate.

I will also correct a completely incorrect statement that the shadow minister made about the childcare tax rebate. Obviously the costs of the quality agenda are important. Surely, everybody would agree that having rigorous quality standards for child care is appropriate. We are talking about the care of children, for goodness sake! Rigorous quality standards are appropriate. The costs as modelled by Access Economics are as I have outlined them. The government, by increasing the childcare tax rebate to 50 per cent, is obviously partnering in those costs, and you see the consequences of that in the budget.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education and Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But you just reduced the childcare tax rebate.

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

The shadow minister, right on cue, now makes a comment about the childcare tax rebate. Let me give her the real figures, because she should think about the real figures. When she was sitting on the government side of the chamber, the maximum that a family could claim from the childcare tax rebate for out-of-pocket costs was $4,354. We came to office and increased it to $7,500. That is a difference of $3,146 for those families who are very high childcare users. That is not the normal pattern of care, but there are families that use that much care. For those families, the maximum amount has gone to $7,500. So I would ask the shadow minister in relation to the childcare tax rebate to perhaps explain to the Australian community why it was when she was a government member she thought $4,354 was an appropriate maximum but now she criticises the government for a $7,500 maximum. Heavens above—people understand hypocrisy, and the stench of it is rising!

On the question of Building the Education Revolution, I genuinely appreciate the problem that you have raised. My advice is that there are some legal questions here. So I would prefer to be a bit careful about what I say on the public record in relation to this, but obviously I do acknowledge that there are some real concerns in your local community.

My frequent correspondent friend, the member for Gippsland, does write a lot of letters and I do my best to keep up with him. I say this to him: I am all for better empowering principles. This government has undertaken more reforms in the empowerment of principles in 2½ years than occurred in the 12 long years before, including the independent public schools trial in Western Australia. We have done more in this area than was done in 12 years before. In terms of delivering economic stimulus, we relied—because we needed to deliver it quickly—on the ways of delivering school capital that were being used at that point, including through working through state departments for the delivery of that capital. (Time expired)

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to ask some questions about the silo mentality within government. The delivery of some outcomes on the ground for our area, broadly covering the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio, is dependent in the future on a couple of considerations by you as minister—not necessarily within the existing portfolio brief but in some critical areas alongside that.

As a low SES area we have been a priority employment area. That is starting to come to the end of its life. You will be pleased to know that the Small Area Labour Markets figures for our area show record levels, which is fantastic for us. We certainly want to keep that going. We have a jobs plan through the regional employment process that we want to have released sometime soon and will want to start implementing. That will transition over time and sit under Regional Development Australia. That is one of the silos that sit alongside DEEWR at the moment. So, my first ask is: with the jobs plan that is about to hit the ground and with the welcome money through the vocational education implementation plan that we have talked about over the past couple of weeks, where does RDA and RDA resourcing sit with regard to the delivery of DEEWR programs into the future?

Another silo is what FaHCSIA and the Attorney-General’s Department are doing, particularly with regard to Closing the Gap strategies. In my view that is an important contributor to our jobs plan, which we are starting to focus on more and more, with education being a critical part of that. Is there any consideration, from your end, to either resourcing or having greater input into how FaHCSIA delivers Closing the Gap strategies and how RDA does resourcing from its department? At the moment there is not much, and it is going to be a problem in the near future unless it gets some resources—particularly for programs through your department on the ground.

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

I will definitely come to the member’s question but will first conclude on two other matters. I was indicating to my frequent correspondent that we are a government that has invested more in principal autonomy in state schools than any government before us. As a result of our Smarter Schools National Partnerships, the New South Wales government is trialling a pilot program in 47 schools identified as disadvantaged schools to increase school based decision making, including devolving more responsibility to local principals and flexibility in staffing and resource management. We are working in Queensland with principals in at least 10 per cent of government schools to operate in a more autonomous school environment by 2013. In Western Australia we are resourcing 34 state schools to become independent public schools. So it is okay to talk the talk about principal autonomy, but when we actually go to the scoreboard, this is a government that has delivered more in two and a bit years than we saw in the 12 years before.

On the question of the delivery of Building the Education Revolution, the biggest capital constructs are in primary schools. There are 7,700 of them; 5,500 of them are in state schools. This was a big capital construct that needed to be delivered quickly. The member is inviting people to conclude that it would have made sense for the first time ever to say to those 5,500 principals, ‘You do it this time, under time pressure, because it’s economic stimulus, rather than using the capital development mechanisms that are there.’ We relied for an urgent delivery of economic stimulus on the capital development mechanisms that were there. Of course I believe in principal autonomy. That is why, as Minister for Education, I have done more in that area than any education minister before me.

I am not sure whether the member for Stirling is still shadow minister for workplace relations or whether Senator Abetz is—it is too complicated to watch the Liberal Party’s chairs go around—but I want to correct a statement that the shadow minister made which is absolutely incorrect and ought not be in Hansard uncorrected. The member for Stirling made a statement about the employment of some young people in Terang. He suggested that their employment had a problem with workplace relations laws only as a result of our new, modern, simple award. That claim is 100 per cent untrue and completely wrong. The 1½ hour engagement of these young people was not in accordance with the pre-existing Victorian award, which had a two-hour minimum call-out period. Yes, it is not in accordance with the simple, modern award that has a three-hour minimum call-out period but to, firstly, suggest that the issue here only developed because of award modernisation and the fair work system is simply not true and ought not to be said by anybody who wants to be taken seriously. The question that the member for Lyne has raised with me is a very good one. I would like to congratulate him on his very persistent advocacy.

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He stands up for his community.

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

He does stand up for his community. He is a very vigorous advocate of his community. There are many people sitting in here and around him right now who could learn a lesson from the persistent, vigorous advocacy engaged in by the member for Lyne on behalf of his community. Because of his vigorous persistent advocacy, Labor have agreed to invest $150,000 in a program to be undertaken by the Port Macquarie-Hastings Council to look at VET in his area, particularly at the low participation rates in his area. That is a longstanding problem. We obviously want to see people come through for higher qualifications.

The member for Lyne raised an issue of putting government services together. That is very important. We as a government are working our way through that. I would direct his attention to the ‘A stronger fairer Australia’ statement where a number of these things about whole-of-government responses and joined-up services, particularly for the most disadvantaged Australians, are canvassed. I would say to him: frankly, it is not easy. The silo mentality is very persistent. But we understand that families do not live in silos; they intersect with the world. And communities do not live in silos; they intersect with the world. This matter is certainly on our agenda and the details of that agenda are contained in the ‘fairer Australia’ statement. (Time expired)

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question to the Deputy Prime Minister relates to the Building the Education Revolution program, or the school hall program, that she is administering. I have written to her on several occasions about this. It relates specifically to cost shifting that the South Australian government is engaging in, which the Deputy Prime Minister quite clearly ruled out when she first announced this program, specifically in relation to the bushfire tanks in Yankalilla, Macclesfield, Basket Range and Stirling East and also in Eden Hills, which is in the member for Boothby’s electorate. Schools got initial quotes for buildings. Those quotes were changed post fact by the state Labor government, which were putting their requirements, somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000 worth of spending, on each of these bushfire tanks. My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is: will she ensure that the state Labor government stops cost-shifting, which she said they would not be allowed to do when she first announced this program?

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

Can I respond to the member for Mayo’s question. The COAG reform process, including the national partnership agreements and the agreements that were struck to deliver economic stimulus, required maintenance of effort by jurisdictions. This is being monitored through a Treasury to Treasury process. Obviously, that is the best way of getting to all of the figures. I would remind him that the provision of capital tends to be lumpy capital. That is the term used. That means you can have budgeting for a big capital project in one year. So you should not necessarily expect to see ever-rising figures—it will depend. Pre-existing budget arrangements obviously had some variability in the figures year to year, depending on the size of construction projects being brought to a conclusion in any given year. But the COAG agreement process ensures maintenance of effort and, let me assure you, we are very serious about that.

On the question of the rainwater and bushfire arrangements that he talks about, my advice is that, because of new protocols about school construction in areas that could be affected by bushfire, if you are extending the footprint of the school then you need to extend the availability of water in emergency circumstances. Consequently, as we extend the footprint of the school through Building the Education Revolution then the availability of water is also being extended in accordance with those protocols. I have corresponded with him about that matter and that is the explanation: to make sure that with the new buildings we are acquitting the relevant obligations have been put in place to do the best to ensure that the schools are kept safe insofar as is possible during the circumstance of bushfire.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note that the education appropriations started at about 5.40 pm, so we still have some time.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Weren’t you here?

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We were here, but Craig Emerson went over.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will correct the honourable member. It started at 5.35 pm. I propose to finish at 6.35 pm.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So you have the delight of hearing from me for the next five minutes. I am delighted to be able to assist the Leader of the House and give him the information he so desperately needs to know about education. That is why you came early, I assume—so that you would be able to hear from me.

In the minister’s response to my questions about education, she neglected—I am sure inadvertently—to answer a number of the key questions I asked her. I will put them on the record again to give her the opportunity to take on notice and report back to the opposition at the appropriate time. For example, in answering the questions about the staff of the implementation task force, she answered by talking about the advisers who have been appointed as part of the deputy chairman’s panel for the chairman of the task force, Brad Orgill. The question I asked her was about the staff that he had appointed to assist him. We know the task force has appointed a media adviser, but we are actually asking if the minister is going to keep the promise she made on 12 April that Mr Orgill would appoint, as part of his staff—not as part of the advisory panel—investigators with a range of skills in building design, construction and safety, quantity surveying, architecture, financial auditing and law. How many forensic accountants and auditors have been appointed as part of Mr Orgill’s staff? It is not enough to have a media adviser. Obviously we expected the head of the implementation task force to take a suite of rooms in Canberra, appoint the best forensic auditors in the country and go through, contract by contract, the extraordinary rip-offs, waste and mismanagement that have been features of the minister’s signature tune, being the school hall rip-off program.

We also asked her not whether the chairman of the implementation task force would be able to access the contracts in each of the states other than New South Wales but whether she would provide those contracts to the opposition. In New South Wales the state government, as rancid as it is, provided the contracts to the New South Wales upper house so that the members could examine them themselves and work out whether the taxpayers had received value for money. We asked the minister whether she would provide the opposition with the same contracts from the other states, not whether she would provide them to the implementation task force. So I ask her that again.

The minister entirely avoided answering the question about how many schools had been fitted out with the 100 megabits per second broadband that the Prime Minister and she promised before the 2007 election would go hand in hand with the computers in schools program. We asked her which schools and how many had actually received that hook-up. I think the answer to that is probably none.

In answering a question about the Education Investment Fund, the Minister for Education talked about projects that were being funded by that fund—a fund that, of course, the previous government established. The question I asked the minister was whether the promise the government had made to put an extra $5 billion into the Education Investment Fund was going to be kept. She completely avoided answering that question and instead talked about the projects that were going to be funded. The question from the opposition was: will the government keep their promise to take the Education Investment Fund to $11 billion—which I note the Leader of the House trumpeted in question time on numerous occasions. I would make the point that what has in fact happened is that the Education Investment Fund has been raided for the pet projects of the Prime Minister and the minister, and not one extra dollar has been put in to reach that $11 billion. I also asked her about the trades training centres. She absolutely did not answer any questions about the trades training centres—(Time expired)

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $829,038

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to take the opportunity to outline the key measures in the budget for the Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government portfolio. Upon coming to office we had to deal with a significant infrastructure deficit. Under the previous government, we saw public investment in infrastructure fall by 20 per cent as a share of national income. We know that the former government, over the first eight years after it came into office in 1996, slashed $2 billion from the federal roads budget, and rail fared little better. This budget continues our record investment in the nation’s infrastructure and in our productive and export capacity.

This year, construction work begins on some $20 billion worth of major road and rail projects. This budget also makes provision for the delivery of vital infrastructure reform, such as the establishment of national transport regulators. The highlights in the budget include: $1 billion for interstate rail, bringing our total investment in rail to $9 billion; $70.7 million to get the Moorebank intermodal terminal shovel-ready; $89.9 million over four years for almost 100 extra CASA frontline staff; $200 million for aviation security, including next-generation body scanners, funding for regional airport security and explosives detection dogs; $6 billion for the Regional Infrastructure Fund to invest our resource profits in capacity-building infrastructure and improve our potential to grow in the future; a record $2 billion in 2010-11 for local government; and some $8.5 million for long-term planning of Sydney’s aviation capacity.

In terms of rail, road and port infrastructure, we have committed now through the Nation Building Program some $37 billion over six years. This is a major investment. Projects which will commence construction in 2010 include the Hunter Expressway, the Pacific Highway’s Kempsey bypass and Sapphire to Woolgoolga upgrade, the Cardwell range realignment in North Queensland at the Bruce Highway, the Kings Road interchange at the Calder Freeway, duplication of the Princes Highway from Waurn Ponds to Winchelsea, Dampier Highway duplication stages 2 to 6, the Great Eastern Highway and Roe Highway interchange, and the Hume Highway Holbrook bypass—we brought forward funding in this budget for this to make sure that the full duplication can be completed by the year 2012. Rail projects include: the Wimmera intermodal terminal at Dooen, the main north-south rail capacity improvements, stage 2 of the Port Botany rail line upgrade between Enfield and Port Botany, the Kewdale intermodal rail developments, the Gawler rail line modernisation and the upgrade of the Hobart to Western Junction rail line project. They are all due to commence this year.

There is a total of $312 million for aviation security and safety—importantly, in legislation before this parliament right now, legislation which must be carried in the next fortnight by both houses. There is $89.9 million over four years for almost 100 extra CASA front-line staff—

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Briggs interjecting

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would have thought that this was not the day to make jokes about airline safety. Funding is by an increase in aviation fuel excise from approximately 2.9c to 3.6c per litre, a smaller increase than if CPI were maintained. The Howard government raised the fuel excise 11 times, to keep pace with inflation, in order to fund safety and regulatory activity. All of this funding is going back into extra front-line staff in aviation security for CASA, and I would hope that it has the support of every member of this parliament.

There is $14.5 million to continue the Indonesian transport safety program. This program was begun by the former government. It is an excellent program. It is an important part of our engagement with our region, and we have determined to continue it. The implementation of national regulators, another important program, is a reform which will boost national income by up to $2.4 billion a year. Can I conclude by saying that we have funding for regional and local community infrastructure in addition to the work that we have done already. (Time expired)

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The numbers mentioned by the government are typical of the rhetoric but are a long way from the fact. Indeed some of the numbers being referred to are about expenditure which is not scheduled to happen for more than 10 years. This is typical of the way in which the government try to promote their activities. For instance, in relation to roads the government said on 21 November 2007 that they would complete the duplication of the Pacific Highway by 2016. They are over $3 billion short in funding to deliver that objective. They promised us that there would be work done on the Northern Sydney rail freight corridor—$840 million. That has turned into a $15 million study. What about the Gateway Motorway at Nudgee, a 16-kilometre section from Nudgee Road to Gympie Arterial Road? A study was to be completed by June 2009, but the study has not even been done, let alone the road built. So, much of this is rhetoric rather than fact, and that is typical of the way in which the government have approached their task.

A number of speakers want to speak, so let me raise just a couple of other issues. I would like to refer to Regional Development Australia, which in its short time is already showing signs of failure. Certainly there is a lot of discord and disappointment at local committee level because they have simply got nothing to do. The government’s rhetoric has again failed to be delivered in reality. This was supposed to be a shared partnership arrangement between the Commonwealth and the states, but it is obvious that no state is paying its way. Even though they have been given the opportunity to select committee members, none of the states are contributing much. Some states are contributing nothing at all. In most states a bit of unused office space and a little bit of so-called in-kind support are being provided. This scheme is doing nothing to make a connection between the regions and the Commonwealth. In fact it is using up millions of dollars of administration funds without actually delivering anything to the people of regional Australia. The dialogue is not happening. The committees are being asked to prepare plans. This will be the third set of plans that the regional development committees have been asked to prepare since this government was elected. How about some action rather than spending their time just on bureaucratic activity?

The other odd thing of course is the way in which the committees are set up. It is supposed to be a regional development organisation. In Victoria there are nine regional development committees and four of them are in Melbourne. On the other hand, New South Wales has 14 and there is only one in Sydney. So in reality what we have got, essentially, is an organisation that is supposed to be about regions but is in fact mainly about cities. Indeed most of the state offices have been closed by this government, and money has been diverted to a new better cities unit in Sydney. This is where this government’s priorities are in relation to this issue.

One other matter I would like to raise is the question of the funding for security at regional airports. The government has announced $32 million in the budget to assist with security in the airports which are now going to have to provide full screening—the airports of those towns that have the larger, Dash 8, aircraft coming to them. The government said in Senate estimates that there are 19 such airports that will require upgrading. Most of them will need expenditure of $2 million, $3 million, $4 million or $5 million in capital works just to be able to meet the requirements. Then, of course, there are the operational costs as well. So $32 million is only going to go a small part of the way.

I have raised with the minister previously the concerns of towns like Barcaldine and Blackall that have only three services a week. They carry out less than perhaps 50 passengers a week. It is being done in a triangle service with Longreach, and so they have Dash 8 aircraft. These little places are going to have to spend something like $3 million to $5 million on upgrading their terminal buildings. They will need about six staff to be employed for a minimum of four hours every time a plane comes in to land. It has been estimated that the cost of the passengers going out of towns like Blackall and Barcaldine will be at least $1,000 a ticket to provide this security.

I believe in security. We need to do the right things. But it is madness to put these kinds of costs onto small airports like Barcaldine and Blackall. And I ask the government: who is going to fund the balance, beyond the $32 million? The government seems to want to deny these small communities the opportunity to have an air service. This is really bureaucracy gone wild.

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Western and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I noted that, in his initial observations, the minister spoke of Australia’s infrastructure deficit, and nowhere does this become more apparent than in Northern Australia. I am thinking particularly of the Kimberley region of Northern Australia and specifically the East Kimberley, for which this budget contains substantial spending measures to address infrastructure shortfalls in education and health, in economic infrastructure and, importantly, in community infrastructure.

The $195 million which the government has committed to the East Kimberley will fund, amongst other things, a brand-new swimming pool in Wyndham. The original swimming pool was built in the mid-1960s as part of the celebration of a great result by Australia at the Tokyo Olympics. The then Prime Minister, Robert Gordon Menzies, engaged in a rapid program of encouraging communities to develop their own swimming pools. They did that out at Wyndham and they got a great pool. But, unfortunately, it is now 40-odd years old. So this infrastructure package attends to fixing community infrastructure such as that pool.

Importantly, out there in the East Kimberley, where there are 8,000 people, housing shortages and accommodation problems—in particular for Indigenous people but for the broader community as well—are at absolutely critical levels. There is an average of nearly eight people per dwelling in the East Kimberley. That has caused accommodation crises and, in many areas, a lack of not just shelter but also personal security for young families and, in particular, young kids in the East Kimberley. The $195 million that we will expend—much of it through this budget—will build 50 new houses in the Kununurra area itself, and then another 50 new houses in surrounding local communities. Already, 23 of the houses in Kununurra are in the process of construction, with many more out of Wyndham currently in the process of construction.

At the Wyndham hospital—with the great cooperation of the Western Australian state government, the Barnett government, which, as part of its election strategy, determined that it would invest in the development of Ord Stage 2—the Australian government, through Prime Minister Rudd, agreed to provide social and community infrastructure. And so the $195 million mirrors, in many ways, the $220 million which the state government will spend bringing Ord Stage 2 into production.

The cooperation with the state government of Western Australia in developing this agenda has been complete. So the $50 million that will be invested in hospitals and health includes emergency accommodation for patients; accommodation for all medical specialists, nurses and doctors; and, importantly, a massive new renovation of the hospital at Kununurra. As an important part of that there are new renal dialysis facilities but also a greater capacity for that hospital to deal with the increased population in Kununurra.

There is $65 million that will build a brand new high school—but more than simply a new high school. The high school will contain technical training facilities and also teacher training facilities. The need to help train teachers to work in that environment becomes apparent when you live in Perth for any period of time and watch education in northern Western Australia. Through the excellent work of principal Matt Wren and through the support of the Western Australian state government minister, Liz Constable, we will put into that high school a dedicated teacher training facility supported by the state government. Teachers will be accommodated in the housing that I have just mentioned and they will develop teacher-training techniques to help make them better teachers in a tough part of Australia, but in a community that does need the support of our government and the support of the Western Australian government.

When the minister began his conversation about Australia’s infrastructure deficit, he filled it out by discussion of the roads, bridges and rail infrastructure that is needed. When you turn your attention to northern Australia, the deep investment that is required in social and economic infrastructure is apparent to anyone who cares. For too long in the Kimberley and throughout northern Australia we have seen inadequate investment in our communities. They are productive communities that have real futures, and in the East Kimberley they have a future that is linked to a horticulture development that will not only generate jobs for locals, including Indigenous people but also, importantly, generate a whole new future for that region.

It is a wonderful thing to look at from my perspective as a parliamentary secretary—(Time expired)

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to participate in these estimates by asking some questions, if I may. Today at question time I noted that the minister referred to the undesirability of B-double traffic being mixed with suburban traffic. This is a feature that we see in my electorate every day on Pennant Hills Road, the link between the F3 and the M2.

I note that last year $150 million was appropriated for design work in relation to that road to ensure that it would be, presumably at some point in time, shovel ready in relation to the procedures that may enable a project to be considered for funding. I ask: has that money been spent? There is no appearance that I have seen of any spending of those funds. And if it has not, is the funding still there? What is the program for participating in activities that will bring this project to a point where it can be considered on its merits? In my view it is the most urgently needed improvement to infrastructure involving travel between Melbourne and Brisbane.

The other matter that I want to refer to is that I had some discussions about the noise made by very large transport vehicles, and I am told that there were measures to involve noise abatement that had to be considered at a transport ministers conference, presumably, where agreement is to be forthcoming about measures that will ensure the noise emanating from these vehicles is addressed. I would ask: what progress is being made on that? It has been suggested to me that something that was supposed to have occurred, perhaps even this year or earlier, is now being put back. If that is the case I think it would be undesirable, but I would appreciate some advice from you, Minister, as to the progress that is being made in relation to that matter as well.

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in particular detail about the infrastructure provisions within the federal budget. To set the scene with regard to that, the Geelong community has gone through substantial growth over the last three decades and a large part of that growth within the broader Geelong community has taken place within my federal seat of Corangamite.

At the 2007 election the Rudd opposition, as it was then, developed a very strong comprehensive infrastructure plan for my community and for that of south-west Victoria. In contrast, the then Howard government had no developed plans and no priorities for infrastructure within our region. When we talk about infrastructure throughout my region, we are talking about roads such as the Geelong Ring Road and the duplication of the Princes Highway, and we are talking about the very substantial rail infrastructure that we do have in our region and the need to develop and broaden that even further. We have now come to government and started the process of delivering the structure that we committed to in 2007.

The Geelong community had a very clear choice at the 2007 election in terms of infrastructure and they have an even clearer choice in the election that will take place later this year. We have a substantial investment plan, a plan that will deliver real structure and real benefits for regional Australia, particularly the greater community of Geelong. It is an integrated plan, a plan that will deliver real benefits not only to Geelong but also to the whole of south-west Victoria. On the other hand, we see a coalition with no infrastructure plan, no plan whatsoever to build our nation and build regional communities like mine in Geelong. The opposition are antiprivate-sector investment. They are antibusiness. They are anti-environment. They have no plan for health. They have no plan for schools. They have no plan for skills within my region.

I watched the Treasurer deliver his budget speech and of course one of the key aspects of his speech was the importance of infrastructure and the important role that the government can play in the delivery of infrastructure. I then thought that perhaps the coalition and Tony Abbott might deliver a speech in reply the following Thursday night that might have a plan for this nation. So I sat back and I listened, and infrastructure was not mentioned. I then thought that perhaps the shadow Treasurer might have an infrastructure plan, that perhaps he would deliver that in his speech the following week at the Press Club. Of course there was no plan. There was no talk about infrastructure. I then thought maybe the shadow finance minister might talk about infrastructure. He did talk about infrastructure and he did highlight that they would not support any infrastructure in my region. The Geelong ring road will not go ahead under a coalition government. The duplication of the Princes Highway will not go ahead. Then, of course, they tried to cover up their mistakes and their lack of a plan by deceit. Through the Geelong Advertiser and the Colac Herald they attempted to mislead by indicating that they were going to fund infrastructure through cutting the Roads to Recovery program. The Roads to Recovery program is very, very important for delivering local infrastructure in communities and local roads. I ask the minister to respond. (Time expired)

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to respond to three issues that have been raised by members during this debate. Firstly, the Leader of the National Party. I was surprised that he actually raised the Pacific Highway. The fact is we are committing $3.1 billion over six years. The former government spent $1.3 billion over 12 years. Right now, in terms of construction commencing or construction that has already commenced, there is the Banora Point upgrade, the Ballina bypass, the Glenugie upgrade, the Kempsey bypass, the Woolgoolga to Arrawarra section and the Bulahdelah bypass. Over 1,000 people right now are working on the Pacific Highway. Had the Howard government kept up their proportion over the period compared with the New South Wales government’s contribution, that duplication would now be close to completion. The member for Page and I met with the Pacific Highway taskforce and all the mayors along that highway, and they all congratulated the government on the work we are doing.

In relation to aviation security, I say to the Leader of the Nationals: this should not be a partisan issue. Our regional airports need upgrading, and we are providing the capital funding to make sure that occurs. Frankly, to come in here and just make up a figure in order to have a scare campaign is irresponsible. We know that aviation security and safety is the No. 1 priority identified by the aviation white paper. The government is committed to pursuing these reforms. We have sat down with industry and the airports and worked through these changes.

Secondly, in terms of the questions from the member for Berowra, I can confirm to the member that we have allocated $150 million. It is in the Nation Building Program. The memorandum of understanding has been signed with the state government and we remain committed to that funding. The New South Wales government needs to determine its position as to whether it will proceed with this project but we have ensured that the funding has been quarantined, and I will continue to do so. I think the F3 to the M2 is an important project. It is unfortunate that this is the first lot of Commonwealth funding allocated to this project. Over the previous 12 years they did not get it; under our government $150 million has been allocated in the Nation Building Program. That is why consistency of funding for infrastructure is vital and that is why I would caution the coalition against making commitments against this spending. We are committed to the integrity of that process, and that should be maintained.

Turning now to the noise abatement issue that the member raised, I would expect that that these discussions perhaps would have taken place at Austroads, which essentially is a committee made up of the RTA in New South Wales and its road transport equivalents around the country. They are responsible for research and for standards. This has not been an agenda item at the Australian Transport Council ministerial meetings that I chair, and I am advised that that was also the case under the former government. So Austroads is where the discussion would have taken place.

With regard to the questions from the member for Corangamite, construction is underway on the Geelong Ring Road stage 4A. Detailed planning is underway on stage 4B, which is scheduled to start in the 2010-11 financial year. Construction on the long awaited duplication of the Princes Highway between Waurn Ponds and Winchelsea will commence this year. In partnership with the state government, we are delivering roadworks worth some $435 million for the people living in this region of Victoria, including, of course, Roads to Recovery funding which this government is committed to and the opposition has threatened. (Time expired)

John Forrest (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too would like to pursue some questions of the minister and seek his assistance on interpreting the budget documents. It is a little difficult for listeners out there to believe the commitments that are being made, and being repeated here in this session, when commitments made in the past have not been honoured. I refer specifically to a project entirely contained in the federal division of Mallee—that is, the Wimmera-Mallee pipeline. Before the minister responds and says that I should be asking this question of another portfolio, I would remind him that at the 2007 election, in particular on 19 November 2007, in a shadow ministerial statement, he said:

A Rudd Labor government will provide $124 million further investment in the Wimmera Mallee pipeline project.

Subsequently we have seen only $99 million of that. My constituents are asking me to ask the minister when they might see the balance, the $25 million that is still outstanding. I remind the minister that the recent Victorian state government budget allocated $25 million, in receipt from the Commonwealth. So they are expecting it as revenue and there are still quite a lot of unfinished infrastructure needs in the project, like the backfilling of huge supply channels and the replacement of culverts under roads. There is a huge challenge confronting local councils. There are nine of them, all now confronted with huge bills—given the minister’s portfolio interest—for fire services. These are fire services that they have been forced to replace. It is not just something that they have to invest in and therefore it is a state responsibility; it is something they have had to change because the supply system is different.

In answer to a question on notice, the Prime Minister responded to me on 13 May 2009 and changed the wording of the media release to say ‘up to $124 million’. What I want to know from the minister today is when he will honour the commitment he made in 2007. The member for Ballarat, who is present in the chamber, would know that the commitment to fund that vital water infrastructure project was very much a feature of the 2007 election campaign in western Victoria. The integrity of the minister at the table is at stake here. He said it would be delivered and it has not been. I am expecting him to respond and advise me where it is in these budget papers, whether it is in his portfolio or someone else’s, because I cannot find it.

The constituents who rely on this project now as the only water supply for the whole of the north-west corner of Victoria are expecting a constructive answer from the minister as to when the balance of $25 million is going to be made available to the Victorian government. It has become a matter of urgency. The fire service has been installed and the water authority is carrying the funding for that. It is a contingent liability for all those municipalities. The backfilling of the channels is becoming an enormous task and so is the building of the culverts under roadways. These are all issues relating to the minister’s portfolio, and I am seeking his assistance to address my question. When will we see the balance of $25 million for the Wimmera-Mallee pipeline?

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a number of questions to ask the minister. But, firstly, I would like to say that the seat of Kingston is in the outer metropolitan suburbs of Adelaide. So I was very pleased, after being elected and after lobbying very hard for the rail extension from Noarlunga to Seaford, that it was this government that funded that rail extension. The people in the southern suburbs of Adelaide have been waiting for over 30 years for this rail extension. The corridor has existed for 30 years and there has been community campaigning on this rail extension for many years.

The southern suburbs of Adelaide have been growing at an enormous pace. There are lots of new suburbs—places like Seaford Meadows and Seaford Rise—but the infrastructure over the last 10 to 20 years has not kept up with that. This was something that the residents very much wanted to know about. So it was very pleasing that it took the election of a Rudd Labor government to commit $291 million to extend the rail line. This has been welcomed because it is very much needed. Residents need to be able to get around. It takes approximately 45 minutes, sometimes longer in peak hour traffic, to get to the CBD. On this new rail line, which will be electrified—which will be a first in Adelaide, because our train lines in the metropolitan area are not electrified—people will be able to easily get into the city. Not only will it ease urban congestion caused by cars on the road; it will also go a long way to making it more affordable for people to go out and buy their first house. A lot of the people moving out to these suburbs are first home buyers and they do need the ease of affordable living on an ongoing basis. This rail line will certainly provide that.

On a trivial note, but something that the people of Kingston are very excited about, the rail bridge that is part of the rail extension will be 0.1 kilometres longer than the Sydney Harbour Bridge. It is some source of pride for the people of Kingston that they will have a very long bridge.

In addition, there has been a lot of talk about road funding, and certainly I know that the people of Kingston have welcomed significant investment from this government in road funding. One of the big projects that was committed to while we were in opposition was the Main South Road-Seaford Road-Victor Harbour Road intersection. I was very pleased to go up this weekend and see the lights installed at that intersection, as we are improving the movement of traffic. This is a very popular route for getting up to McLaren Vale that this government promised in opposition and is delivering in government. I was also very pleased that we did not just commit to road funding while we were in opposition; we continue to commit to road funding. I was very, very pleased to join with the Prime Minister in March to announce funding to improve a very dangerous intersection—the Main South Road-Victor Harbour intersection. So we are seeing really significant funding from this government.

It is disappointing that the previous government did not invest in infrastructure in Kingston. I think that is a real black mark against the previous government. While the suburbs were growing, the previous government did nothing. But what is more concerning to the people of Kingston, and certainly to me as the local member, is whether the rail extension from Noarlunga to Seaford is under threat. We know—as the previous speaker, the member for Corangamite, mentioned—that the opposition are very unclear about what projects they will continue and what projects will be under threat. While this government is getting on with the job and actually delivering projects, I am not sure—and the residents in my electorate are not sure—whether or not the rail extension to Seaford or in fact the Victor Harbour Road safety upgrade will be one of those discontinued items. Is there an asterisk next to these projects that means that they will be discontinued? The people in Kingston spent 12 years under the previous government not getting infrastructure. They are now starting to see infrastructure being delivered on the ground. I ask the minister to update us further on some of these infrastructure spends.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be very brief, Minister. We have a place called the Millaa Millaa intersection in Far North Queensland, in the Atherton Tableland. We have had five deaths there in two months. It is very, very serious indeed. Even though we have now been going back and forth to the state officials for a considerable period of time, there has been no action. There have been five deaths in two months, and I think there have been 10 deaths over the past 18 months—but I would not be quoted on the second figure. Nearby, not far away at Tolga, there is another intersection which has been brought to attention by Peter Griffiths—at the Humpy there—which is extremely dangerous. People will be killed; there is no doubt about that. Regarding the widening of the agricultural access roads throughout the tablelands, Rose Sutton has done a lot of very good work on that. Once again, no work has been taking place, and someone is—or some people are—going to get killed there. There are two places—at Majors Creek, where the road comes into the Charters Towers-Townsville highway, and at the Kurrimine-Silkwood intersection with the main coastal highway—which need converging lanes as opposed to the current T-junctions or right-angle intersections.

A bigger and more strategic development is the Gulf Country of Australia, which, if you include the north-west minerals province, is the richest part of the country. It has most of Australia’s rainfall runoff and most of Australia’s water. It is rolling blacksoil plains, 400 or 500 kilometres wide and 1,000 kilometres in depth. It has mineral resources stretching from Georgetown right across to Mount Isa. But we cannot get into or out of that gulf or lower peninsula area—and I am pleased that the member for Leichhardt is here, because he is well aware of the problem—except if we were to come back down through Cairns, which is a disaster, and we are not allowed to do it anyway. We are not allowed to use the railway line and we are not allowed to cart cattle or mineral product down through Cairns at the moment.

How the hell do we get out? I will tell you how we get out. We have a port that is falling to pieces at Karumba—the concrete has almost completely gone; it is ceasing to exist as a port at the moment—or we go via Charters Towers, which is 500 kilometres from this area. That would mean carting ore, trying to get out through Townsville on a highway that is 50 years old, single-lane and built up. If you have an oncoming truck carrying ore or cattle and you are a caravan going north, God help you. You have an eight-foot-four on the left-hand side of the road, if you leave the road. We just had some 60 cattle, I am told, in a truck roll over on the weekend, again on this highway.

During the last wet season, we were completely cut off from the coastal highway—and I know you are well aware of that, Minister Albanese. No matter how much money we spend on it, we cannot make it all-weather. We appreciate the work of this government and the previous government in upgrading that highway, but we need the alternative route to get our product. All of Australia’s bananas are grown up there. More than half of Australia’s mangoes are grown up there. We lost $3 million—arguably $5 million—because we simply could not get out of North Queensland during the last wet season. The alternative route was not serviceable for the sort of product that we needed to get out. So that highway desperately needs to be upgraded, as does the port of Karumba. And we are not talking in either case about big money.

The government have done a wonderful job—and I pay them full tribute—on the North Australia clean energy corridor. They have given us reality so that we have been able to go to people. I understand that two major companies now have outlaid $20 million on building this transmission line. But we would never have got that far without the intervention of the government. I want to put on record my sincere appreciation. Along that corridor are a number of clean energy projects, but we desperately need a continued commitment from the government.

Finally, we have four low-level projects. We ask—and I have discussed this with you, Minister Albanese—to fast-track or more realistically accomplish a regional development program through moderate water utilisation projects at Richmond, Georgetown, Cloncurry and Normanton. That is an estimated 200 jobs per town, 7,000 hectares per town and an extra $100 million a year for the Australian economy. We do not really need money; we simply need an expedition by way of submission to the federal cabinet. We very much appreciate your help to date on both those projects, Minister, and we very much appreciate it in the immediate future.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kennedy has raised a number of issues. He raised issues of particular intersections in Queensland. I am, of course, not familiar with every intersection around the country but I can inform him that in Queensland we have increased our spending on road and rail by 126 per cent. That is a total investment of $8.7 billion over six years under the Nation Building Program. We have also, through local government, funded $71.2 million for local roads through the Roads to Recovery program. As part of the economic stimulus we targeted black spots—such as the ones that the member for Kennedy raised—by having a significant increase in the Black Spot Program. In Queensland, that is $12.1 million targeting 38 dangerous spots on local roads. In addition, the member’s electorate will benefit from the $4.5 million we are spending on the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity package in Queensland this year on roadside facilities, rest stops, parking bays and decoupling areas. It is the first time there has been a designated program for that, just as it is the first time there has been a designated program for level rail crossings—$150 million of the economic stimulus nationally dedicated to that. I certainly would be happy to receive representations from the member for Kennedy about the specific intersections that he raised and to get an ascertained response for him on that.

With regard to the Gulf Country, as the member for Kennedy knows, I had the pleasure of his company in Normanton and Karumba earlier this year. As regional development minister I have gone about this country, regardless of the political affiliation of electorates and, as you would be aware, Member for Kennedy, I have been to your seat a number of times. I was there to open the airport at Karumba. There is, undoubtedly, a great deal of potential in Northern Australia. There is also, undoubtedly, a great infrastructure deficit there. I met with one of his mayors today, who told me that the Einasleigh River Bridge project, a project championed by the member for Kennedy and taken up through the Regional Local Community Infrastructure Program, is underway and progressing extremely well. This particular road bridge is why the isolation of Normanton, Karumba and the Gulf Country occurred as a result of the flooding that occurred in Far North Queensland. The buck had been passed between levels of government but the issue had not been addressed. Labor addressed it through the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. Indeed, it received the second highest grant under the first round of strategic projects.

With regard to the clean energy corridor, I can inform the member for Kennedy that, during the last sitting fortnight, I met again with the businesses and local government areas concerned. We also had a very successful meeting here in Parliament House where businesspeople, as well as local representatives, were hosted by the member for Kennedy. The Treasurer, the Minister for Resources and Energy and I attended. This program has a great deal of potential. One reason why we are committed to the regional infrastructure fund is that there is potential. If the infrastructure investment is got right, it will achieve much greater returns in increased productivity and increased export performances. We have no doubt that the economy has been held back by those issues.

With regard to the Noarlunga to Seaford rail line, I was also pleased to be with the member for Kingston for the launch. This is a much-needed project, as have been the road upgrades in the southern outskirts of Adelaide. This is a growing community and it requires this infrastructure.

John Forrest (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Forrest interjecting

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(Extension of time granted) With respect to the Wimmera-Mallee pipeline, which has been raised by the member for Mallee, I will endeavour to obtain an answer. Obviously, that particular project is not within this portfolio and therefore is not the subject of these estimates. But I will endeavour to receive an answer. With respect to the delivery of local projects I have engaged directly with the member for Mallee on issues in his electorate. He has raised this matter with me and I will obtain an answer for him as appropriate.

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

I acknowledge the fact that the minister has been to my electorate on a number of occasions. He will be quite familiar with some of the issues that I want to raise. The first issue is the Warrego Highway, for which you as a government committed some $55 million in this round of AusLink. The first tranche of that is about to be constructed. I am not quite sure how long, but it seems to me that, in dealing with Main Roads in Queensland, some of these processes seem to be truncated and very frustrating. But Amby Corner is the first tranche to be rolled out. I would be interested to know whether there is sufficient money in that to also deal with the bridge at Mitchell on the Warrego Highway. There is also a commitment to passing lanes east of Dalby. There is increased traffic, particularly carrying grain and coal along there. The coal goes to power stations in the east. The traffic is enormous—traffic that used to be carried on rail. It is now on the Warrego Highway and it is causing enormous problems for the day-to-day traffic, notwithstanding the increased traffic as a result of the coal seam methane development.

The other highway I was interested in was the Landsborough Highway. A large part of it goes through the member for Kennedy’s electorate, and the electorate currently of the member for Flynn, which will be part of a redistribution into Maranoa. I would be interested to know whether you have had any contact with Minister Wallace in Queensland. I understand that there is a road alliance group based at Longreach and the minister has committed some $70 million to road projects in that region. I think the deal he is trying to strike with you is whether you have $70 million to put on the table as a matching grant for roads in central western Queensland.

A particular point I would like to raise as well is the bridge over the Barcoo. It is on the Landsborough Highway and is the major arterial route to Darwin and back down to Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. It is in dire straits. It desperately needs money. I think it cannot wait for any other program. It desperately needs rebuilding. I will be interested in your comment in relation to the Barcoo bridge.

The other one is the enormous amount of flood damage that has occurred in my electorate. I understand from the main roads office that there is some $100 million worth of road mitigation work that has to happen as a result of that massive flooding in western Queensland. A lot of these roads have only been patched up and are still in dire need of that flood damage money. I will be interested to know whether you have had any contact with the minister in Queensland and whether that $100 million will soon be available to go towards the repair of those highways as well as the outback roads as a result of the damage that has occurred during the flooding in western Queensland.

Finally, another one that I sent you a note about the other day which is making national headlines is the Birdsville Track, which was subject to massive flooding earlier in the year.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Albanese interjecting

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

It is a very big issue for the people of the outback. You would know, having attended the Birdsville races last year, how many people will come along that road. Minister, the other thing is that it is the main arterial route that brings supplies into Birdsville. They come from Adelaide and there is no alternative but to come up the Birdsville Track. The problem at the moment is the punt that goes across the Cooper Creek and that has not been used for 20 years. It can take two or three cars at a time. I will be interested to hear whether you have been speaking with the minister in South Australia responsible for this part of the road infrastructure. It does need your attention, I have to say, because it is going to cut that road for the next six months. It is a strategic road. It is a main supply route for food, and other supplies, as you would know, to make its way along the Birdsville Track. Outback tourism is a big issue for Australians and I would appreciate your comments. (Time expired)

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have six issues, and I am happy to have some taken on notice and for you to respond where you can, Minister. The first is the RDA and the resourcing of the RDA structure into the future. It is going to become a critical issue for delivery of programs in our area going forward as we transition from being a priority employment area. It is a great advocacy and lobby structure that is being built. For it to be more than that, though, there needs to be a recognised resourcing base that goes with it. So anything you can give with regard to the funding or resourcing of RDAs would be welcome.

I thought I heard you mention earlier that there is funding attached to the regional infrastructure program, and I would be interested in the ongoing and recurrent funding of the local infrastructure program. That was, over the last 18 months, an excellent program for local communities such as mine on the mid-North Coast. It did make a big difference. Small area labour market figures today have us at record unemployment levels, and that can be partly attributed to the local infrastructure program. I am worried that it is getting lost as we come out of stimulus mode. I would hope that that is an ongoing program. So anything you can give on that front would be appreciated.

The issue for local government, particularly in New South Wales, where we are rate pegged, is infrastructure backlog. I have to mention again the Greater Taree City Council, which has had the old New South Wales Treasury fellow go through. I cannot remember his name.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Percy Allen.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you; yes, Percy Allen. We have $100 million of infrastructure backlog in one council alone, particularly with respect to timber bridges. The member for Page, who was just in the chair, has a similar concern with respect to Kyogle council. For the North Coast, the land of valleys and hills, on the timber bridge issue we are seeing a lot of failures happen at the same time. We have high growth and a low rate basis, and this issue is just getting pushed onto local government. I have asked before about a Commonwealth timber bridge program of some sort. If it is only in areas where there is high growth and there is a low rate base, that would be something for consideration and advice.

I heard the Pacific Highway issue mentioned. I cannot let it slip by. I have lived through a 2006 commitment date from Paul Keating and John Fahey—standing up at the Tweed holding hands. I have even lived through 1999 as a commitment date and 2010 and now 2016. I would love to hear that firmly locked in. If so, there is going to have to be an increase of funding in the next couple of years to finish the job. The 50 to 60 per cent that is done is fantastic and welcomed. It is making what is left more dangerous, and that does need to be sped up.

There is the issue of aviation at the three airports in the Lyne electorate. We are getting them working together. We are getting general aviation pushed to the smaller disused airports, which is great. The RPTs going into Port Macquarie, in particular, are creating increased pressure. I know that an application that has been put before the department with regard to regional aviation. I would ask for some advice on future direction not only with respect to Commonwealth input into infrastructure at regional airports but also more generally with respect to airport infrastructure in regions throughout Australia. That is it. Thank you.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the short time I have: the member for Maranoa has raised the issue of the Warrego Highway. We have been busy talking to our Queensland counterparts to make sure that the $54 million funding we have committed is spent as an immediate priority. He raised a number of other issues, and I am pleased to say that the member for Maranoa is very genuine about the issues which he raises. With regard to the Birdsville Track, the Attorney-General’s office has contacted the minister responsible in South Australia on the issue of the Birdsville Track punt. Under current arrangements, it is up to the South Australian government to ask the federal government for assistance in natural disasters such as flooding.

The member for Flynn raised the issue of the commitment that we have to Gin Gin and the upgrade of the southern approaches. It is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition went to the member for Flynn’s electorate last week and could not confirm the $20 million funding for that vital project. Nor could he confirm the funding for the Calliope crossroads—the $55 million that we have allocated to get stage 1 underway. I am very concerned with both the issues that he raised and the issues that the member for Lyne raised about Roads to Recovery funding. These untied grants for local roads are vital for local government, and they are under threat from the coalition. There was a great deal of concern raised by local government today at the Australian Local Government Association conference about those issues. I am pleased to be able to engage with local members about their specific projects on an ongoing basis.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Health and Ageing Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $7,164,888,000

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question to the minister is: given that the Strathpine GP Super Clinic is not an area of workforce shortage, can the minister explain why overseas-trained doctors practising there have been granted exemptions under the Health Insurance Act to be able to work in Strathpine?

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

I am happy to take all the questions. It is interesting that we can spend over $7 billion and the shadow minister does not actually have a question about the budget, but no doubt he will be coming to that.

The same rules apply to any applicants for area of workforce shortage and district of workforce shortage.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Dutton interjecting

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

If the shadow minister wants an answer, he will have to allow me to say more than three words to provide him with the answer—despite this not being a question about the budget, which he obviously does not have any questions about. The same rules apply. There are a complex range of provisions that can apply at different times, because areas move in and out of shortage. There are arrangements that apply in some instances for people who carry them over from previous arrangements. There are no special arrangements that have been put in place for superclinics. I am happy to get the detail of any particular people, without breaching privacy requirements that might be in place for any area where you think something untoward has happened, but I can absolutely assure the member that the rules that apply across the country are the same rules that apply for superclinics.

The advantage, if you like, that is given to a superclinic is about the provision of infrastructure money, which is of course what our superclinics program is about. That has been provided for Strathpine, and it has been a very successful investment. Not only has it come online much quicker than was expected but it has been providing a range of services that have not been available in the member’s electorate beforehand—particularly, for example, for services provided on Sundays and thousands of people taking advantage of the after-hours consultations. But I can assure him that there is no decision from the government and there is no direction from the government that any different rules apply. There are, however, some idiosyncrasies from the program that have applied in many different areas which are to do with areas moving in and out of workforce shortage and continuations of benefits that might have been provided in particular circumstances. I am happy to undertake to find out if any of those arrangements apply at the Strathpine GP Super Clinic.

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

My question concerns the 2010-11 Commonwealth budget and is about the Rudd government’s $355 million commitment to expand the successful GP superclinic program. The minister would be aware that on two occasions she has visited the GP superclinic site in Palmerston: the first to turn the first sod and the second to inspect works. I am pleased to inform the House and the minister that the work is steaming ahead and we look forward to the opening of the clinic in the coming months. The minister would also be aware that since December 2008 residents in Palmerston have been able to receive after-hours care from this facility. This means that many people do not need to make the trip into Royal Darwin Hospital, which is good for the Palmerston community. Some 30 people a night have presented at the clinic and I think only about 10 per cent have had to be referred on. It is a significant number of people who have not had to go into Royal Darwin Hospital. My question to the minister is, and she is aware of my strong support for this program: can she outline why the government will invest a further $355 million to this program and are there any obstacles in the way of seeing this program delivered to communities across Australia and, in particular, in the Northern Territory in my seat of Solomon?

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

I can briefly answer that question. I am conscious that there are a lot of people who want to ask questions and we will turn through them as quickly as we can to make sure that we answer as many as possible. Yes, of course, I am aware of the superclinic that is being built in Palmerston and the after-hours services that are being provided. I am very aware from representations both from the member for Solomon and from the member for Lingiari, who was here, that there is interest in a further expansion of both GP superclinics and other primary care facilities within the Northern Territory. Of course, the Northern Territory has benefited significantly from our investments in health reform with more than $100 million being invested in the Territory. In particular, one of the highlights is nearly $30 million which is going to the first ever medical school in the Northern Territory.

We have included in this budget an item that the opposition to date has not asked questions about and that is an extra $355 million into expanding the GP superclinics program, but also providing infrastructure support for more than 400 GP clinics across the country. We know that there is a need for more of the large ambulatory care facilities that many superclinics are going to be able to provide. There is also a need for good solid general practice providers who want to expand their services—maybe with a practice nurse or a dietician or a podiatrist—or want to be able to take more GP registrars, for example. Often they cannot do that without expanding their physical infrastructure. So grants of up to half a million dollars are going to be available for these projects on a competitive basis. We are no doubt going to receive those sorts of applications from the Northern Territory. They will be available for Aboriginal medical services and community health providers as well. It is a good opportunity for those services that want to expand and have the capacity to expand, and might want to train more health professionals, to be able to seize that opportunity.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to a previous question to the minister. Given that other Strathpine practices within a stone’s throw of the GP superclinic have sought to employ overseas-trained doctors and have exemptions to do so, but have had those applications rejected—these are practices within the same catchment area, within the same geographical definition, if you like—how can the minister maintain that special treatment has not been conferred on the GP superclinic at Strathpine?

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

Does the minister want to answer one by one?

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

I am quite happy to. My answer is exactly the same as the answer that I have already given, which is that there are not special conditions or requirements or standards that apply for the GP superclinics. I have already undertaken to investigate whether there is anything that makes an unusual situation, such as the continuation of entitlements from some other site, of which there are some idiosyncrasies. There has not been a change of policy since we have been in government in the way the district of workforce shortages works for overseas-trained doctors. Any of the rules that apply are the rules that applied under the government that the member was part of. I do think, however, that this is really grasping at straws about a service which is being fundamentally welcomed by the community in the member’s electorate, which to date he has totally ignored for political reasons. It is really taking this to a ridiculous extent quite apart from the fact that this is not the result of a budget measure. It is clear that the opposition does not have any questions about the budget.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an opportunity to reaffirm some discussions that have already been had and also to put some views, particularly on the health reform process. I would like some feedback on the post-COAG changes to the pre-COAG organisational chart. In particular, New South Wales has concerns with regard to the state funding pool and how that is going to work in the distribution of funds to high-growth regions, which traditionally have copped the brunt of state funding authorities delivering inequity through their resource distribution formulas.

There is a great deal of concern in the regions about this new state funding pool—how much discretion it will have and whether the Commonwealth is going to tie its hands in delivering equity and fairness for all. As well, in the structure and the delivery of the health reform agenda there is concern in the community sector about where they sit in the funding streams that come down. My understanding is that the health and hospital structure has its own funding, the primary healthcare structure has its own funding and aged care will at the moment sit separately. But I am unclear on where the community sector sits—the whole range, from Meals on Wheels and the like. There is nervousness in New South Wales about where they will sit in the new health reform. If you can give any information on that front it would be fantastic.

As well, this is an opportunity at a local level to reaffirm issues around boundaries. I spoke to the New South Wales health minister last week about the Manning network wanting to sit with the Hunter network and Port Macquarie, Kempsey and Wauchope wanting very much to sit together. That was put to the Prime Minister in his meeting with clinicians when community cabinet met in August last year.

There is also the issue of capital catch-up in the health reform agenda. I hope a substantial number of beds flow either directly from the Commonwealth or through the states through various COAG agreements. This is a direct pitch, once again, for Port Macquarie Base Hospital for at least a 20-bed catch-up. We have had a horrible history of being out of the network and all the national controversy of being the only privately funded public hospital, then getting brought back, a master plan being done and for five years not much being done around that master plan. With a catch-up in a high-growth region everyone is under pressure. There has been a direct request for beds. Everyone has been as creative as they can be in clinical delivery, but we cannot get past the issue of needing an increase in the number of beds. Hopefully that will happen in the short term.

There is also the longer term issue around the networking arrangements of the hospitals in the local area and where acute and subacute sit. Already work is being done between the Commonwealth and the states with regard to the geriatric unit, and any timetables on that would be welcome. Whilst it is not really yours, at a state level information about timetables for the palliative care subacute beds to be moved across to Wauchope hospital as part of the network would be welcome as well.

The issue of GP superclinics has been thrown around. We have submissions in with you on that front as well. We are one area that would certainly welcome one, particularly from the division of GPs—without showing favouritism. I mention that particularly because it has a training element attached to it.

That is a nice segue into an issue I have raised before, the silo thinking of governments. The space that is happening in education in the post-Bradley environment and for us in regional delivery of health care is really exciting. We are seeing more and more universities go regional, particularly into low-SES areas. The delivery of health care and its connection to universities and training is a very successful model. In our area it is the University of Newcastle and the University of New South Wales. They have been in that space before but are now looking to expand. This is really a pitch to say that if health and education can make this bigger than it already is that would be fantastic for regional areas such as mine.

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

My question is to the Minister for Ageing. Minister, as you are very much aware, the Shortland electorate is one of the oldest electorates in the country. It is actually the 11th oldest electorate in Australia. My question concerns the 2010-11 Commonwealth budget and the Rudd government’s $7.3 billion investment in our health and hospital system—something that is very important to older Australians. After 12 years of neglect and underinvestment by the federal Liberal and National parties, can you outline to the House what the health reforms mean for our older Australians and the aged-care sector. In particular, could you outline what specific funding has been allocated to aged care. I must say that I have been to many of these sessions where we look at health, ageing and employment. Under the Howard government we were lucky to get the most junior parliamentary secretary here. Tonight we have got three ministers and a parliamentary secretary. I would like to congratulate the executive on that. Minister, I am very keen to hear your answer.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Shortland. Indeed, the reforms in the 2010-11 budget build on our major commitment to deliver a lot more services for our older Australians. My answer will touch on some of the issues the member for Lyne brought up about providing better health, hospital and aged-care services for our older Australians.

We will be investing more $900 million over the next four years to deliver a national aged-care system. The federal government will be taking full funding and policy responsibility for aged care. We recognise how important that is for service delivery. Part of that will be taking responsibility for home and community care, which as you know is currently delivered by the states. This is so we can provide a seamless system for older people so that they can get the care they need at the right time—whether it is some home modifications or right through to high-level residential care.

We are also committing more than $36 million to establish one-stop shops to provide information to people. We know how difficult it is for people to access aged-care information and services, so this will provide one point of reference where they can find this information. This is all about providing more services for our older Australians.

In this budget we have also committed to providing more aged-care places through $300 million in zero-interest loans to support the development of 2½ thousand places. This builds on our earlier investment in zero-interest loans, which saw quite a large level of interest, as capital assistance to have more aged-care places built. Also, there are 1,200 consumer directed care packages for aged care, which places people right at the centre for their care needs, which is vitally important.

There is also $122 million for more than 280 sub-acute beds in MPSs and over $10 million to boost rural and remote community care providers. There is $280 million to support longer-stay older patients in our public hospitals. As part of taking responsibility for aged care we are providing for those people in our public hospitals whilst we are building more aged-care places.

We are also committed to building the aged-care workforce for now and for the future. We recognise how important that is. There is $310 million in funding for more than 30,000 aged-care training places and scholarships, which are vitally important. We are also committed to providing a clear career path for those people moving through the aged-care sector. These workforce programs will include clinical and graduate placements.

We are also looking to establish teaching nursing homes. That is so important because those teaching nursing homes will combine local knowledge with the resources of many of our universities and nursing homes. We have also got more than $59 million for aged-care education and training incentives payments. In this budget we have also committed to better protections for our care recipients, which is something the Rudd government is really committed to. There is more than $70 million to improve the operation of our complaints investigation scheme. We are also expanding the options for the resolution of complaints and greater protections for accommodation bonds. These are two vitally important areas for increasing the protection of our older Australians.

We are also improving access to care services, with funding of more than $98 million for GPs and flexible funding for Medicare Locals program to provide more services in our aged-care homes as well as $7 million for a benchmarking tool of business advisory services to improve the operation of our aged-care facilities. All of these measures, worth more than $900 million, will go towards providing better services for our older Australians throughout the country. Also in relation to aged care, we have committed to the Productivity Commission looking at the future needs of our aged-care sector and making sure that we address those. This builds on the reforms the Rudd government has had in place since it came into government over the past 2½ years. We have more than 10,000 aged-care places, we have increased our funding by about 30 per cent, we have recently announced all of this—more than $900 million in reforms—and we are committed to the Productivity Commission inquiry to build the aged-care system of the future.

Of course this is all in absolute stark contrast to the previous government. As I said, we have increased our funding by about 30 per cent and funding per resident has increased by about 16 per cent. If we look at the difference in the previous government, if we look at the opposition leader when he was the Minister for Health and Ageing, and compare that then we see that their funding commitment was a lot less. In fact, there would be $730 million less funding for aged care if we continued to have the same level of aged-care funding as it was when the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Health and Ageing. So there is a very stark contrast between what the Rudd government have been doing—our record investment when it comes to funding for aged care—compared to the opposition leader when he was the Minister for Health and Ageing—$730 million less. And we are committed to building an aged-care system of the future.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health Services, Health and Wellbeing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have questions for the minister as well as questions for the parliamentary secretary. Minister, the National Health and Hospitals Network agreement states that the final number and boundaries of Local Hospital Networks will be primarily a matter for the states to resolve. It also states that the boundaries will be resolved bilaterally, between the state health ministers and the Commonwealth health minister. Is the minister aware that after this agreement was signed, the South Australian health minister declared that he would be establishing one health service for the metropolitan area, and that this metropolitan health service will cover seven full-service acute hospitals running from Elizabeth to Noarlunga—from the Lyell McEwin Hospital, to the Noarlunga hospital—and is in fact more centralised than what we currently have? Will the minister agree to have South Australia’s seven major hospitals, including three major referral hospitals, in the one Local Hospital Network? Is the minister also aware that after Tasmania signed the National Health and Hospitals Network agreement, the Tasmanian health minister indicated in early May that her preference was for a single Local Hospital Network for all of Tasmania? Will this be acceptable to the Commonwealth government? Minister, how is this consistent with your claim in the $10 million television ads that these networks will be run locally when it is quite clear that the state governments are not prepared to facilitate truly Local Hospital Networks?

My questions to the parliamentary secretary are on the Organ and Tissue Donation Authority. I ask: when were you advised, and by whom, of the resignation of the chief executive officer of the Organ and Tissue Donation Authority, Karen Murphy? Parliamentary secretary, can you say what advice you were given for the reasons for Ms Murphy’s departure? Did the department raise any concerns with you about the authority’s administration prior to the departure of Ms Murphy? If so, can you detail these concerns and can you provide the dates on which any audits were conducted into the administration of the Organ and Tissue Donation Authority and their findings?

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

I am going to come back to making sure I can answer the member for Lyne’s question first, and then the member for Boothby’s. We are happy that the member for Lyne has taken a keen interest in how the new national hospitals network will be able to make sure that his part of the country gets its fair share of services. The purpose of moving to activity based funding, of making sure that the money can follow the population, is a positive one which will be of significant benefit to the member for Lyne’s area. I think he is unnecessarily concerned about ‘the state pool’, which I think were his words. What has been agreed as a result of COAG is that the Commonwealth will pay its 60 per cent of funding to individual state funding—essentially holding pools, which is a legitimate phrase to use.

The really good addition that we were able to negotiate, through the COAG arrangements, is that states—so, in the member for Lyne’s instance, New South Wales—will put their hospital funding into that as well, and all of the money that flows to public hospitals for activity will actually come from that funding. So there will be a much more transparent process, which means that money that we are putting in cannot replace money that the state might have previously put in, and there cannot be any allegations about skimming or inappropriate moving around of money. So that is a really big step for transparency, and should give a big boost to local areas’ confidence in getting the appropriate share of money.

You are quite right to raise questions about how the different boundaries will work, and I think this comes to the member for Boothby’s questions as well. It is going to be within the remit of the states to establish the local hospital networks. But we have been very clear about our priorities. It is to be done by agreement. There are two contrasting arrangements. For the Medicare locals, we will be driving the proposed boundaries, but there will still be a negotiation process with the states and territories, and we would expect the same to apply in reverse for the local hospital networks.

So I do not think that the member for Boothby, for example, should be too unnecessarily alarmed that state ministers are expressing preferences. I think in one instance you might be verballing the minister. But in others it is legitimate for them to be standing up and saying, ‘Our preference is this.’ That will not necessarily meet the requirements of the agreement.

We have until the end of this calendar year to finalise those arrangements, and we would expect that there would be a lot of public input. I imagine that, in the member for Lyne’s area, there will be a lot of very active public input into what would be the appropriate framework to make sure that local communities do have a say and do not feel like they are being controlled by a very distant bureaucracy but, nevertheless, that there is a big enough catchment to mean that you can plan sensibly for the types of hospital services that are needed in any area.

We do not agree with the opposition’s view that you should have an individual board for every hospital. We think that that sets up competition which can often be damaging and unhealthy. But if you make sure that there is a small group of hospitals that are able to plan together, that can indeed work very well.

The member for Lyne also asked about ‘capital catch-up’. Of course, there is always a challenge in these arrangements, because in health and hospitals a lot of historic decisions have been made about where health services are—and predominantly they are in our capital cities, right in the middle of town. I do not think anyone is suggesting that we close those hospitals, and I think there is a lot of support for the specialised services that they provide.

We need to do the flipside, which is to guarantee that there will be new capital investments and enough beds in the areas where there are new populations. I think that the member is aware that the agreements reached at COAG—for extra beds in the subacute area, and for extra support for emergency departments and elective surgery—do mean that we will shortly be able to make announcements about the distribution of some of those beds. In fact, I announced today that some of those beds are being provided at Wollongong Hospital. We expect, in due course, together with our state colleagues, to be able to make more of those announcements.

I think the Minister for Ageing answered some questions about aged care and geriatric issues in particular. We have heard you loud and clear: the seat of Lyne would like a superclinic. I think the only issue that you really have is if the Liberal Party is elected; they do not believe any more money should go into these programs.

I am very interested in the ideas that you raise about the university delivery and health delivery being more integrated. Our investments in the Taree hospital are a good example of doing that, and we are looking forward to that proving to be successful and to being able to emulate that in other places.

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

Minister, the member for Petrie has the call, but did you want to continue?

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

I just want to quickly address something. I will not take the whole five minutes, I can assure the member for Petrie. Some questions were asked of the parliamentary secretary about organ and tissue donation. I understand—although we are happy either way—as to the etiquette, that the parliamentary secretaries cannot be asked questions. But I think he is more than happy to talk with you and answer them.

Let me say, for the record, though: it is not an appropriate forum for us to be discussing an individual past employee’s record. We are quite happy to make available to you the information that is appropriately available publicly. I am also quite happy to explore whether a briefing can be provided to the opposition. But I do not think that talking about an individual employee—a statutory office-holder, actually, who has resigned—is an appropriate thing for us to be canvassing in this sort of environment. We would not do that in question time and I do not think it is appropriate for us to do it here.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health Services, Health and Wellbeing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, can I ask the minister to take those questions on notice, then?

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

I am certainly happy to take those questions on notice, and I am certainly happy to provide any information that can be appropriately provided. We are very comfortable about the work that this agency is doing. We are pleased that it has had bipartisan support. The only thing I am concerned about here is an individual person’s privacy and just making sure that I am not breaching some of those standards on the run. But we are quite happy to provide information to you as appropriate and we can do that either by way of briefing or on notice. We will discuss with you afterwards which you would prefer.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health Services, Health and Wellbeing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This goes to the heart of the parliament’s ability to scrutinise an authority. The questions are about whether the department had any concerns about the authority’s administration and whether audits were conducted into the administration of an authority. This goes to the heart of the parliament’s ability to scrutinise a government budget and to scrutinise a government department, and I ask that the minister take these questions on notice.

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

I have undertaken to take those questions on notice and I am happy to do that. I do flag that, similar to the member for Dickson’s questions, these are not budget measures from this year’s budget. If you cannot ask these questions in question time, or if you do not want to ask them in any other way, we are happy to provide you with that information. But I am not going to be in the position where we discuss an individual statutory office holder who is no longer in the employ of the Commonwealth. Obviously, I would like to take advice to make sure that I am providing the appropriate information to you. I am more than happy to do that and more than happy to assume that your continued support for the campaign in relation to us increasing the rates of organ donation will continue.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question concerning the 2010-11 Commonwealth budget is about the Rudd government’s commitment to massively increase funding for the health workforce. The minister has a firsthand knowledge of how important the health workforce is to my local community, having twice visited the Redcliffe Hospital to talk with health professionals and to turn the sod for the Redcliffe GP superclinic, to be known as the Moreton Bay Integrated Care Centre.

I heard from the member for Lyne before that he would like a GP superclinic in his area, but he also wants a clinic that focuses on training. I suggest to the member for Lyne that I have the best practice model to use as far as building a GP superclinic and training are concerned, because my superclinic is being built by the Redcliffe Hospital Foundation and partnering with the University of Queensland’s School of Medicine. Consequently, not only will it be providing services to its GP medical centre seven days a week up to 10 pm at night on hospital grounds, taking the pressure off the emergency department, but it will also be training GPs and nurses and have a dental school, with specialist training going on throughout the centre.

One of the things I was most surprised about as a new member of parliament was the poor state our workforce planning was left in by the now Leader of the Opposition. Until the election of the Rudd Labor government, there was a freeze on GP training places right across Australia. At a time when we had a shortage of GPs in the community, the Liberal Party actually imposed a cap on the number of training places for GPs. The Leader of the Opposition is also responsible for the legacy of a shortage of nurses in the community. This is a health system that he says was in good shape in November 2007. Can the health minister outline to the House the work that this Rudd government is doing to turn around the disastrous state workforce planning was left in after 12 years of a Liberal government?

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question concerning the 2010-11 Commonwealth budget specifically concerns the Rudd government’s $466.7 million commitment to e-health. I am sure that everyone in the House was witness to the support this decision received from the community. For many years, governments of both political persuasions have supported the concept of e-health. In fact, I was at a street corner meeting a couple of weeks ago in Huntfield Heights in which this issue was raised, and people at the meeting were a little bit confused because they did think that the Leader of the Opposition, previously the health minister, was in favour of e-health records. They certainly were in favour of it. So they were very confused about why the Leader of the Opposition has changed his tune.

I understand that the Leader of the Opposition staked his credibility as health minister on delivering an e-health system. This commitment, like so many others that he made in health, has been shown to be nothing more than hollow rhetoric. Certainly, that seems to be the take-away message that constituents in my electorate got. Can the minister please outline the benefits that e-health will bring to the health system and the potential risks of this irresponsible decision by the Liberal Party to scrap funding of this project?

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

I thank the member for Petrie and the member for Kingston for those questions. I will take them both together so there is time for further questions.

Obviously, the member for Petrie is a very passionate advocate for training the health workforce. I must say that the University of Queensland’s involvement in the Redcliffe superclinic—building it essentially as a training facility as well as a provider of services—is an exciting part of that project. Some health professionals will be trained in Petrie who have never been trained in the northern suburbs of Brisbane. I think it is a great breakthrough, because—as in the situations in the Northern Territory, Tasmania and elsewhere—if we train people in areas where there are shortages, there is a better chance that they will enjoy that experience and decide to stay and then we will start dealing with some of the serious problems of a lack of a decent distribution of the health workforce. Unfortunately, that is a big part of a legacy that we inherited from the previous government.

There is $632 million in this budget to enhance our training for GPs, specialists, nurses and allied health professionals. Some of these programs are to provide local relief in rural areas; others are to simply make sure that we can train enough GPs. We need a big increase in the number of graduates who see general practice as a good opportunity for them in the future. We were very excited with the response that we received not just from the public but also from the stakeholders, because reform in health, and even investments in health, can be controversial, but to have the AMA, the ANF, the college of general practice and the Australian Medical Students Association—just to name a few—all coming out in such strong support of this initiative is a credit to our strategy.

We have had to invest in areas that were seriously neglected by our predecessors. That includes, in last year’s budget, funding the health workforce agency, established in South Australia—the parliamentary secretary’s state—and proper planning with regard to the needs of the health workforce. It also includes things like the rural incentives that come online from 1 July this year, which will help, again, with the distribution. We are very excited about the opportunities this provides. There is a lot more to be done but, with the support of good local training providers like we are seeing established at the Redcliffe superclinic, we will be able to really turn this around.

The member for Kingston asked a question relating to the budget and a very significant investment, $467 million—that is, nearly half a billion dollars. That is money that should have been committed by the previous government but never was. It is money that should have been committed even according to the Leader of the Opposition’s own measure as the health minister. Not only is this now many years late, but we are in the extraordinary position where the Liberal opposition has said that they would cut this funding. This is something that every expert across the country and every health service provider says they desperately need. Whether you are working in a rural and remote area, whether you are working across multidisciplinary teams, whether you are working in the area of professional healthcare that the member for Kingston previously worked in, you would know that being able to have electronic health records is a key that will unlock so many future opportunities that to stand in the way of this is just sheer madness. I have to say that it smacks a little bit of, ‘We didn’t do it so we’re just not going to let anybody else get on with the job.’

This is a problem and will present great problems in the community. I know that the shadow minister is aware of this. Perhaps he has been rolled by the shadow finance minister. This is an important investment in our future. It should be supported. It will be a great risk, I think, in the campaign—something that people will focus on—when we are asked, ‘What are your health reforms going to deliver compared to what the Liberal Party are offering?’ At the moment all they are offering to do is take it away and spend it on something else not health related. That is all that we know so far. That would obviously be a great disservice to the community.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wonder if the minister could outline to us the detail in relation to the bringing nurses back program, which was closed in the budget. Minister, how many nurses in total were recruited for hospitals and separately for aged care under this program before its closure?

Could the minister also provide detail to the House in relation to the outcomes of some of the Indigenous workforce measures—both what the projections were and what the outcomes have been?

Could the minister also outline to the House, with reference to the $355.2 million allocated in the budget to 23 GP superclinics, whether or not those superclinics will be located in areas of workforce shortage? Is she able to outline to the House the detail of the grants as part of that $355 million measure—that is, the way in which those grants will operate, what the criteria will be for how the money will be paid, what it will be paid for and how that money is separated from the 23 GP superclinics? How is the $355 million apportioned?

I wonder also whether or not the minister could, as part of her response, provide a guarantee that local clinicians will be involved in the local networks in which they work.

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

I am happy to answer those questions. Seven hundred and sixty-four nurses were provided with support from Bringing Nurses Back into the Workforce. There were 150 aged-care nurses. I am just seeking confirmation as to whether that number is included in the 764 or whether it is on top of the 764.

Obviously, we are pleased that we have been able to support more than 700 nurses back into nursing. Obviously, we are disappointed that it is not even more. We do not think that this program achieved the objective that we would have hoped for it. That is why the program has been closed and it is why we, through consultations with the nursing sector, have now supported through this budget a package of far more extensive nursing programs, a lot of them being upskilling ones about keeping people satisfied in the workplace and about expanding support—for example, in aged care—in areas where we are keenly aware that more support is needed.

That information is available. Of course, in a perfect world you would have thousands of nurses who currently work as waitresses or secretaries or who are not working at all using their skills in nursing. One of the most important ways for us to be able to turn that around is to get our investments in health and hospitals right and to make sure that we are improving working conditions for people in hospitals and in our health services so that it becomes an ongoing attractive area to work in and the retention problems are reduced.

This is a complex area. Not everything that you do works exactly the way you want it to. But there are more than 700 nurses back in the workforce who would not have been without this program and that is not to be sneezed at. We are comfortable that the new proposals, which were worked on closely with nursing stakeholders, will bring a further benefit to our nursing professions.

I am happy to provide you with some general information on the clinics and the grants. As you would expect, further—

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Indigenous measures?

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Indigenous Health, Rural and Regional Health and Regional Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will do that, mate.

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

About the grants: it probably will not surprise you that we expect to make an announcement relatively soon about the details so that people are able to make their applications, and that process will be public.

We are requiring, as you would expect and as has occurred for the GP Super Clinics Program, that in return for public taxpayers’ money being invested mostly in private facilities there will be an additional benefit to the community—whether it is training more of our workforce, whether it is opening extended hours or a range of those services, they will be part of the guidelines. The split is about half and half. We will make those details available. It is in our thinking that the GP superclinics will range from some of the smaller ones to the more extensive ones. We think it is appropriate to have a little bit of flexibility, because it will depend on applications and expressions of interest that are made. But we believe that there is a great need.

I cannot undertake to the shadow minister that every superclinic will be in an area of workforce shortage, because there are areas of need that may have a combined range of factors that mean it is appropriate to train more of your workforce in a particular area or where there is a very high need for Indigenous services, for example. But obviously that will be a key factor in identifying where services are needed. We have made training, workforce shortages and the needs of disadvantaged communities and fast-growing urban populations our key criteria for the past superclinics and we do not expect that that will greatly change. But detailed announcement will be made in the coming weeks.

I am going to hand over to my colleague the Minister for Indigenous Health, Rural and Regional Health and Regional Services Delivery on the Indigenous question. Was there one other issue that was asked?

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, in relation to the local clinicians being involved in their local networks.

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

Yes, we are happy to absolutely stand by the fact that clinicians should be involved in the management of Local Hospital Networks. The shadow minister would be aware that we have expressed a preference that at all times the best person for the job be chosen. Not at all times will that be a local clinician but many times it will. I do note that there is an exception in this for Victoria, which has a strict requirement that they have used that no local clinician employed in a Local Hospital Network would be then on their boards. We are not seeking to have Victoria change that arrangement—nor, it seems, any of the professional groups—but we would obviously keep an eye on that. But for an arrangement that it seems the community and health professionals have accepted, we understand that they have made that decision to avoid conflicts of interest. We think that that can be provided in a number of different ways just by following proper corporate governance to ensure that conflicts of interest do not occur and we are absolutely determined that clinicians should have a very significant role in the management of Local Hospital Networks.

The Minister for Ageing has just provided the total number of 764 nurses—that is inclusive of the 150 in aged care.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Indigenous Health, Rural and Regional Health and Regional Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question. You were asking about Indigenous health workforce development and the number of people who will be trained.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, outcomes in each of the programs of workforce in your portfolio.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Indigenous Health, Rural and Regional Health and Regional Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will give you the specific outcomes in each area on notice. But what I will tell you is that in 2010 the Puggy Hunter Memorial Scholarship will support over 290 Indigenous Australians to study in medicine, nursing, dentistry, allied health and Aboriginal health worker disciplines. Through the COAG national partnership and closing the gap initiatives we will be funding 83 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander outreach worker positions, of which 40 will be positions in Aboriginal medical services. We will be funding 94 FTE new Indigenous health project officers in the divisions of general practice. At least 96 people, not FTE, have now been recruited to those positions, of whom 38 are identified as being Indigenous Australians. We have appointed a new National Coordinator for Tackling Indigenous Smoking, who of course is Tom Calma. We have put together a $19 million package over three years to strengthen the capacity of the Indigenous health workforce. This will support the Australian Indigenous Doctors Association and the Congress of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Indigenous Nurses to expand the work of mentoring and networking young Indigenous doctors and nurses. We are providing additional training opportunities for Aboriginal health workers. We are supporting the National Aboriginal Health Worker Association, which has recently been formed, and ensuring that Indigenous health is expanded into the curriculum in medical and allied health and nursing schools. The Aboriginal health workforce is at the top of our agenda in terms of providing pathways for Aboriginal people into the health professions and we are consciously examining new and innovative ways of getting people into that workforce. I will provide you with that other stuff on notice.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question concerning the 2010-11 budget is about the Rudd government’s $7.3 billion investment in our health and hospital system. After 12 years of neglect and underinvestment by the Liberal and National parties federally, can the Minister for Health and Ageing outline to the House what health reform means for communities across Australia? I know that in my electorate people are really thrilled about these health and hospital reforms. In particular, can the minister outline what specific funding has been allocated to our hospital system? I know that my electorate is very keen to hear about that.

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

I thank the member for her question. We are pleased that the $7.3 billion of additional health investments is not only funding national programmes, such as the ones my colleagues have spoken about in Indigenous health, aged care, Medicare and the PBS, but also supporting individual communities. We are starting to see the flow of that funding, for example in the announcement I was able to make today at Wollongong Hospital.

In Tasmania the investments are also very significant. Under the health care agreement negotiated in 2008, where we saw a 50 per cent increase in funding following the pulling out of money by the previous government, Tasmania received an extra $1.3 billion for its health and hospital services. With the new health care agreement on top of that, Tasmania will receive an additional $458 million and benefit from the Commonwealth’s taking on an increasing share of funding, which means that an additional $340 million will flow to the benefit of Tasmanians.

We can see and break down the funding in all sorts of different areas. For example, there is the emergency department money—$3.5 million—which is already flowing to the Royal Hobart Hospital and the $3.7 million for the north of the member for Franklin’s state which is going to the emergency department development at North West Regional Hospital in Burnie. There will be more funding from this year’s budget with the money beginning to roll out across the community from 1 July this year. For example, there is another $11 million to help support the rollout of the four-hour target for emergency departments and just under $10 million for capital money as well as money to support almost another 20,000 ED presentations across Tasmania.

Those examples are just from emergency departments, but we could go through the same for elective surgeries and subacute care. In Tasmania, where the population is small but the community is quite widely dispersed, making sure that there are sufficient funds to be able to provide as many services as possible close to people’s homes is very important. The cancer investments that have been made are very welcome in Tasmania, and we are keen to continue working with our colleagues, who have some particular challenges in elective surgery. There are some long-wait patients in Tasmania, where there are simply not enough specialists available to provide the services, but we are working closely with the Tasmanian government to see how we can use this new investment in hospitals not only to provide better ongoing services but also to help break a backlog accumulated over many years, including those years when the country was under the previous government.

This is part of our determination to invest in health and make sure we deliver better outcomes to the community. We are only able to do this as a result of our very careful work during the economic crisis. We now have our budget in a good position, where we are able to make investments of over $7 billion in health, and that will be welcome in the community, because we know that families across the country—particularly older Australians—rely desperately on our health services and these investments, particularly in our hospitals, will make an enormous difference to those members of the community.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is again to the minister. I wonder if the minister can update the House about negotiations with Western Australia. What contact has there been at a first minister level? What will happen to funding arrangements for Western Australia post 1 July? What is the government’s latest thinking in relation to the way in which that will happen? Will Western Australian patients be put at a disadvantage because the Commonwealth will not be in a position to properly settle arrangements? Has the government received any legal advice about any impediments if Western Australia does not sign up to the Commonwealth’s agreement as it currently stands? Will the so-called local networks work as statutory authorities or mere advisory bodies? I would like to know about the legal standing or the corporate governance arrangements in relation to those committees.

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

On the same question, if I can add a little, if the minister intends to delegate the appointment of the networks to the state government, how does that fit within the Commonwealth’s view of taking control of health in the states? If the states appoint these authorities and they do not have independent statutory authorities, won’t the control ultimately be vested in the state government, and then it will be back to business as usual? I reinforce what the shadow minister said. Will these boards, networks or whatever you like to call them have independent statutory authority?

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

I can encourage both the shadow minister and the member for Hinkler to actually read the announcements that have been made. These local hospital networks will be set up under statute by the states. That is an express part of the agreement that was reached at COAG on 20 April—of course with the exception of Western Australia, who are yet to agree to this arrangement. The shadow minister who is asking about discussions between the Commonwealth and the Western Australian government obviously will not be surprised that I would not publicly discuss every detail of those discussions.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When was the last discussion you had?

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

I am answering his question, and if he will let me finish I will provide that answer. I am not going to go through all of the detail, as it would not be appropriate, but I can provide you with plenty of that detail. I spoke as recently as last Tuesday to the health minister in Western Australia. We speak regularly. He was in the north of the state when I was in Tasmania, on other business that he had committed to previously. There was a meeting, nevertheless, between our officials. I cannot answer for discussions between first ministers, officials and others. I understand that the Prime Minister and the Premier did not meet on this particular visit, but I also understand that Premier Barnett has recently and publicly stated that he does agree with health reforms but he does not agree with the GST arrangements that are part of the package that was agreed with the other states and territories. I do not think it is a national secret. That has been the Western Australian government’s view for some time.

When I was in Western Australia last week I made clear and itemised which parts of the national health and hospital reforms plan and funding would flow to Western Australia irrespective of whether it signed the agreement. More than $300 million is in that category, because it goes to things like the GP training money, practice nurse incentives and diabetes initiatives—a large number of the things, I might add, that the Liberal Party opposes. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth would provide that money to Western Australia irrespective of whether Premier Barnett signs. There is, however, another $352 million which we want to be able to provide to the Western Australian community, which we stand ready to provide as soon as Western Australia signs the agreement.

I have made clear that our view is that the best way that money will be spent is cooperatively with the Western Australian government. However, if that is not possible, we have our minds open to being able to provide this money in other ways which would benefit the Western Australian community. We are not going to have the community held hostage by a Premier that may not sign. We nevertheless believe that it is in everyone’s interest—particularly the Western Australian community—that these additional funds do flow. I have not yet given up hope that there may be an opportunity for us to reach agreement. I think it is still too early for us to be able to tell whether or not that can be done in a sufficiently timely way. We certainly have legal advice that there is no impediment to us proceeding with establishing the National Health and Hospitals Network in other states and territories of the country, and we intend to do that, whether Western Australia is part of these arrangements or not.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.