Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I am always a little alarmed when I hear senators say that the spending of about $1 billion should be considered non-controversial. I think the matters within the appropriation bills might well be highly controversial, but of course that does not necessarily mean the appropriations will be rejected. I understand what Senator Ronaldson meant, of course. He meant that the measure should be passed, not that it is without controversy.

As you know, Mr Acting Deputy President, I am speaking to the Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2007-2008 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2007-2008, which are being debated cognately. These are known as supplementary additional estimates bills because they wrap up the appropriations for the 2007-08 financial year. Later next week we will be dealing with the appropriations bills for the coming financial year, 2008-09. The amount of appropriations that we are dealing with here today under Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2007-2008 is $626,540,000 and under Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2007-2008 is $501,897,000—a total of $1.127 billion, to be exact. That is an awful lot of money; however, all things are in perspective, and the over $1.1 billion we are discussing represents less than half of one per cent of the total funding needs for the government for the past year.

So now that we have some financial perspective on these supplementary additional appropriations, what can we say about them? Firstly, appropriation bills do not represent the real quantum of government expenditure every year, and it is good to remind the chamber and those listening that most appropriations in fact are standing appropriations which are already established through legislative bills establishing particular appropriations. The aggregate of those bills pass parliament once and then apply appropriations—in some cases into eternity, if you think about social security or pension measures. Well over 75 per cent of government funding, which is the vast mass of government funding, bypasses continuous annual parliamentary approval and oversight as it is channelled via standing appropriations through those individual bills.

One of the themes I have been developing in my time in this chamber, as the finance spokesperson for the Democrats, is that it is about time that the parliament paid more attention to what are known as standing appropriations. As a consequence of my campaign and the campaign of others the Bills Digest does indeed now highlight standing appropriations. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee does indeed now highlight standing appropriations. All that remains, really, is for individual senators to start paying more attention to them, because they do pay attention to them in the individual state but it is in their cumulative or aggregate state that you have to pay attention to them. And in aggregate you are probably looking at over $200 billion in standing appropriations which will not be subject to parliamentary approval this year because they have been previously approved in individual bills; they are merely recorded in the budget process.

Appropriation Bill (No. 5) appropriates sums additional to those sought through the appropriation acts Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4 from earlier this year. Appropriation Bill (No. 5) is for the ordinary annual services of government and it adds to the appropriation acts Nos 1 and 3. As I said earlier, the quantum of funds sought through this bill is approximately $626 million. Similarly, Appropriation Bill (No. 6) appropriates sums supplementary to those sought through the Appropriation Act (No. 2), which is not for the ordinary annual services of government, and is additional to appropriation acts Nos 2 and 4. This one is chiefly grants to the states under section 96 of the Constitution, payments to the Northern Territory, ACT and local government authorities, and funding of non-operating requirements in the form of departmental equity injections. The total amount appropriated in this bill is approximately $502 million.

Appropriation Bill (No. 5) and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) seek authority for supplementary additional appropriation from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is that vast pool of taxpayer money out there waiting to be spent in the current financial year to pay for government initiatives. The chamber would be aware that these appropriations are statutory expressions of the constitutional provisions which allow the government to spend money. In the case of the first appropriation bill the Senate may not amend but can, since 1901, request amendments; and in the case of the second bill the Senate may amend because it does not provide for the ordinary annual services of the government.

Appropriation Bill (No. 5) proposes supplementary ordinary additional expenditure under two broad themes, in part pertaining to election commitments by the Labor government. The first theme relates to increased funding for universities and the second theme pertains to increased funding for measures adopted under the Water for the Future program. The first component provides $500 million in 2007-08 to Australian universities as a contribution towards capital investment in five priority areas, including IT communications in research and teaching; laboratories; libraries and places to study; teaching spaces; and critical student amenities. According to the government this measure will begin to address past capital underinvestment in these priority areas. Note the words ‘begin to address’. The government, and indeed the Senate, is cognisant of the sheer scale of investment needed to bring Australia up to being competitive with the leading countries in the world with respect to education. It should be noted that this capital investment includes investments in assets other than computers and the fit-out of buildings.

Increased funding for the Water for the Future program is segmented into five project areas within the bill, including the National Rainwater and Greywater Initiative. I note that in front of me is sitting Senator Lyn Allison, whom I regard as an expert in these areas. Hopefully, she will stand up and speak about a lot of things that need to be done in that area. The five component project areas are the National Rainwater and Greywater Initiative; the National Urban Water and Desalination Plan; the National Water Security Plan for Cities and Towns; Taking Early Action; and water efficiency, the Western Australian project, which I am very keen on.

Under the National Rainwater and Greywater Initiative, the government will provide $250 million over six years to provide rebates of up to $500 for up to half a million homes towards the cost of installing rainwater tanks or new piping for greywater use. I must say, from my own experience, a relatively small rainwater tank sure fills up quickly. You need many of them to really take what comes off your roof. Once again this is an example of new capital investment. The National Urban Water and Desalination Plan will provide $1 billion over six years for desalination, water recycling and stormwater harvesting projects in Australian cities with populations of over 50,000. This measure includes funding for a Centre of Excellence in Desalination Technology in Perth, a Centre of Excellence in Water Recycling in Brisbane, the Glenelg to Adelaide Park Lands Recycled Water Project and the Geelong Shell Water Recycling Scheme. I have always had the impression that Adelaide has been a leader in the recycling and stormwater harvesting area.

The National Water Security plan for cities and towns will provide $254.8 million over five years to work with governments and local water authorities to minimise water loss and invest in more efficient water infrastructure, refurbish older pipes and water systems and fund practical projects to save water. This measure will help reduce the impact of drought and climate change on Australia’s towns and cities. Taking early action brings forward $400 million of funding from 2011-12 under Water for the Future to accelerate investment in water savings infrastructure and to purchase water entitlements from willing sellers. Finally, the water efficiency Western Australia project will provide $35 million in 2007-08 brought forward from 2012 under the Water for the Future program to make an initial contribution to the Harvey water piping project in south Western Australia.

Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2007-2008 proposes supplementary additional non-ordinary expenditure for a range of projects, including the following: the Digital Education Revolution program; ageing carers additional support program; funding to the Department of Health and Ageing for the upgrade of services, including improved facilities and services and medical training infrastructure, and additional funding to reduce elective surgery waiting lists; funding to the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 2007-08 towards the development of feasibility and planning studies for projects to address urban congestion; and funds to provide Western Australia with ongoing compensation for the loss of its share of offshore petroleum royalty revenue as a result of the imposition of crude oil excise on condensate.

On that last point, the condensate bill has gone off to the Senate to be given a thorough and, hopefully, intelligent examination. They will report, I think, in August or September this year. On the face of it, my initial view is that the condensate incentive or concession has outlived its usefulness and its need. Although it is a very substantial reimposition of tax—I think it is $2½ billion over five forward years or something like that—it is probably time that it went. Without prejudging the eventual view of the Senate, I think it is probably a good option for the government to take. However, that is taking $2½ billion over the forward estimates period out of a company and out of enterprises based in Western Australia. I just remark that there is a compensation measure; however, I would expect much more.

Sitting in the chamber as I speak is Senator Glenn Sterle, who is a senator for Western Australia. He has a great interest in the Pilbara and shares my concern about it. He might not share my solution, but he certainly shares my concern. My concern is that the Pilbara produces a vast swag of Australia’s wealth through its exports and through its enterprises. But, if you look at the Pilbara, there is very little sign of that wealth on the ground. The social infrastructure is poor—you do not see the sort of social infrastructure that goes with places where great wealth resides. Think of a few of the wealthiest places in this country—the North Shore of Sydney, Noosa in Queensland, Toorak in Melbourne and those sorts of places—and compare the ovals, libraries, government amenities, pavements, shopping centres, restaurants, provision of accommodation and so on with what there is in the Pilbara, which produces much more wealth than they do; it is ridiculous. So my own feeling as a Western Australian senator is that the Commonwealth should jolly well give us that money back. They are taking away $2½ billion. I would be satisfied with $1 billion being slapped into a social infrastructure fund for the Pilbara to allow us to get on with providing proper housing for the teachers, the police men and women, the public servants and the not-for-profit people who underpin and provide the stability that we need in regional and remote Australia and provide some substance behind that.