Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I notice my colleague Senator Forshaw is on his way. If I may just briefly entertain the chamber by urging us to—

Kay Patterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Patterson interjecting—

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, Senator Patterson, I also wish you a happy Easter.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Enjoy your bilby.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I hope you enjoy your bilby. I urge the Senate to give these bills speedy passage.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate the previous speaker, Senator Webber, on that very important contribution to allow me time to gather my thoughts. I understood there was to be somebody speaking before me on these appropriation bills, but it is nice to see that priority has been given to the government representative.

The speech given by the Governor-General on 12 February 2008 at the opening of parliament was truly remarkable. It was a speech which reflected the hopes and aspirations of the millions of Australians who elected the Rudd Labor government—such an emphatic victory—on 24 November last year. At the beginning of his speech the Governor-General said:

On 24 November 2007, Australians voted to elect a new government.

As one of the world’s oldest democracies, it is easy for us to take elections for granted and to fail to appreciate how fortunate we are to live in a nation where governments change hands peacefully as a result of the free expression of the will of the people.

We have just witnessed a change of government, an event that has happened on just six occasions in the past 60 years.

Regardless of any partisan affiliation, all Australians can celebrate the success of our democracy when such changes can occur so seamlessly and with such goodwill.

Those words of the Governor-General are very apt. We are fortunate to live in one of the most peaceful and prosperous nations of the world. We can change governments at the ballot box without incurring the sorts of situations that have occurred in a number of countries around the world in recent years and have done so for many years. I am going to come back to that theme later in my speech.

On 23 November, the day before the election, despite the prosperity that this country should have been enjoying and some were enjoying as a result of the minerals resources boom, housing was the least affordable it had ever been, inflation was at a 16-year high, Australia had not signed the Kyoto protocol, the federal parliament had not apologised to the Indigenous Australians for the stolen generations and for past wrongs done to them and working families were faced with Work Choices industrial legislation—a system which stripped many employees of long-held protections and entitlements. Without wanting to labour the point, almost all of the current members of the coalition leadership team and shadow ministry were members of the government that let that build up. Even though John Howard is no longer a member of the parliament, having lost his seat, the record of the Howard government is also the record of Brendan Nelson, the current Leader of the Opposition. It is the record of Julie Bishop, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It is the record of Senator Nick Minchin, who was Leader of the Government in the Senate in the previous parliament. It is the record of Malcolm Turnbull, the now shadow Treasurer and a minister in the former government. I could go on and on. These are the same people who sat in the last parliament and cheered so loudly when the Work Choices legislation was passed by parliament.

That legislation was the realisation of John Howard’s dream, and I have spoken about this before. I can recall when John Howard was shadow minister for industrial relations many years ago when the Hawke and Keating governments were in power. I have to say, he never made any pretence about it. He always believed that, if he ever got into power and got control of both houses of parliament, he was going to dismantle as far as possible the system of industrial award protection and industrial justice in this country. He also had two other objectives. One was to introduce a goods and services tax and the other was to privatise just about anything that the government owned or operated. He had many other agendas, but those three in particular were the most important. It is a fact that he pretty much achieved each of those.

Of course, his crowning glory, or so he and his supporters and fellow ministers such as Brendan Nelson, Julie Bishop, Malcolm Turnbull, Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott thought, was getting the Work Choices legislation through the parliament. They all thought that was their greatest achievement. How wrong they were. One of the great tragedies of the previous government’s time in office is not only that that legislation proceeded to hurt ordinary working Australians and their families but that the government at the time never understood what was happening or they were prepared to ignore what was happening. They blindly went on running advertising campaigns costing hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars trying to convince the Australian public and indeed themselves that somehow Work Choices was a good thing.

Whilst we have seen the commencement of the dismantling of Work Choices this week with the legislation that was passed regarding AWAs, the only virtue in this for the opposition is that they were humiliated in the last election and consequently had to support the repeal of this terrible legislation. They did not want to, of course. They did not want to accept the verdict of the people on Work Choices. They wanted to continue on and oppose this, as we know. Wiser political heads in the opposition prevailed, but in their heart of hearts I think they still wanted to see it continue.

The Governor-General’s speech outlining the agenda of the Rudd government was an affirmation of the Australian people’s faith in electing the Rudd Labor government last November. From day one, we started doing the things we had promised to do—such as repealing Work Choices and signing the Kyoto declaration. The very first act of the Rudd Labor government was to sign the Kyoto protocol. That was a single administrative act of the new Labor government that was applauded around the world.

Yet we had Mr Howard, only the second Prime Minister in the history of the country to lose his seat, over in the United States last week or the week before making speeches condemning the Rudd Labor government for implementing what it promised the Australian people at the election.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is a private citizen.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis says that Mr Howard is a private citizen. I have a great deal of respect for Senator Brandis and the fact that he is prepared to have regard to conventions and the principles of government. From time to time, he speaks very eloquently in this parliament about how there has to be consistency. I have sat in this Senate since 1994 and since 1996 in opposition—long hard years—and I have heard time and time again comments by the previous Prime Minister, Mr Howard, about how members of parliament should not go overseas and denigrate the Australian nation.

Senator Brandis said that Mr Howard is now a private citizen. Mr Howard is the immediate former Prime Minister of this country. He lost office only a few months ago. He was in the United States as a guest because of the fact that he had been Prime Minister of this country. He made speeches about his own record in government. I think it is completely wrong for a former Prime Minister of this country to go overseas within the first one or two months—and he has not done this in Australia—speak to a foreign audience and dump on the new Australian government. If he had any sense of patriotism, if he had any sense of respect for the people’s decision of last year, he would have kept his mouth shut. But, no, he sneaked off to his far right wing friends in America and, after a nice dinner and a few ports, no doubt—maybe even a cigar—he decided to trash the Australian government that had been in office for just over 100 days. How much respect does he really have for this country if that is his approach?

The fact of the matter is that Mr Howard and many in the opposition still cannot accept that they actually lost. I have enough memory of political history to know that I have never seen a situation where a former Prime Minister has gone overseas within the first month or two and trashed the new Australian government. You could at least wait a little while.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He just criticised them. What’s wrong with that?

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, criticised! Anyway, let’s get back to the fine speech of the Governor-General. One of the important reforms that the new government is of course undertaking is in the area of electoral reform. I note that the minister responsible, Senator Faulkner, is in the chamber.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I’m here to listen to your speech.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Faulkner. I know you will listen with great interest to what I am about to say. I sat on both the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration inquiries which looked at the changes made by the Howard government on electoral laws—some of the most disgraceful changes ever implemented, disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of Australian voters, because they closed the rolls the day the election was called. Previously, of course, people could have up to a week to regularise their enrolment. The previous government—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President Chapman, could you draw these people to attention to listen to these fine words that I am now speaking? They should listen.

Grant Chapman (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Opposition senators should understand that interjections are disorderly.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At least I want to hear what I have to say. The previous government of course scandalously increased the limits from $1,500 to $10,000 before you had to disclose the identity of political donations. I believe it is a great achievement that the Rudd Labor government is already moving to correct those scandalous changes and I congratulate Minister Faulkner for doing that. I think it goes back to what the Governor-General said at the start about this great democracy that we have, where we can have elections where governments can change by the will of the people. I appreciate that it does not happen that often at the federal level, but they do change and it can be done peacefully. I think it is because of the strength of our electoral system, and creating opportunities for these massive political donations to be given to political parties of whichever persuasion undermines that system.

I note that, at the same time that we had our election last November, there were elections held shortly after in a range of other countries around the world and questions were asked about the efficacy of them. We saw the tragedy of what happened in Pakistan where Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in the lead-up to the election campaign. Questions have been raised about the recent elections in Georgia and in Russia. We need to ensure that our electoral laws are appropriate and not undermined in any way, and I believe that the legislation of the previous government which disenfranchised so many people undermined the integrity of the electoral system.

One of the other important aspects of the new Labor government’s program that we are moving to implement is in the area of trade and multilateral negotiations. The previous government had a policy of withdrawing from multilateral negotiations. They paid lip-service, really, to the Doha Round. They preferred the approach of seeking to negotiate free trade agreements with individual countries at the expense of trying to participate fully in the multilateral system. That was clear, of course, with respect to climate change, where we did not really even have a seat at the table until the new Rudd Labor government signed the Kyoto protocol. The previous government did not really think it was an important issue.

It is the same with trade. I think one of the standout features of the new Rudd Labor government will be that it will lift the profile of the Australian government and the Australian nation around the world. Once again, we will be in there forcefully arguing to reinvigorate the Doha Round and endeavour to get an outcome, something that was one of the great achievements of the Hawke and Keating governments through the establishment of the Cairns Group and APEC, through the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations and so on. At the end of the day the prosperity of Australians depends, obviously, on the economic policies of the Australian government, but it also depends very much on our ability to trade, to negotiate and to punch above our weight in the international arena. I applaud the fact that the Prime Minister will shortly be visiting the United States and Europe to promote that objective.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about Japan?

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He will get to Japan. The Governor-General’s speech was one of the best Governor-General’s speeches that I have heard. I think it is the best one I have heard since 1996, and I compliment the Governor-General on that speech and wish him well.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, there we have it on the record: it is unpatriotic to criticise the Australian government, especially if you are overseas—perhaps only if you are overseas—a very interesting new test. I must make sure that, if I criticise the Australian government, I do it at home. I will be doing plenty of that in the next few years, I can assure you.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Two and a half years.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Two and a half years at least, yes.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are anticipating debate; that is disorderly!

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is just foresight, Senator Faulkner. I have to say, though, that I was struck by the fact that, in Senator Forshaw’s speech—in which he addressed bills which are about the future and about the plans of this government for the next 2½ to three years—he spoke almost entirely about the past. What that suggests to me is how wafer-thin the vision of this government actually is—how much you need to talk about the past because what you have in store for the future is not really clear even to you at this point in time. What you as a government are laying on the table at the moment is a large succession of fairly thin platitudes and motherhood statements about where you want to go, in a very impressionistic sense, but the detail is not really much at hand at this stage.

In fact, the only detail which is at hand at this stage—to everyone’s great regret, I have to say—is the detail of the many cuts which this government is making, entirely contrary to the impression created before the election that many of the initiatives of the former Howard government would be retained and built upon. That is very different to what is actually happening in that they are, in fact, being cut. This government’s approach to a large number of important projects which had built and enriched the Australian community has been quite a horrendous one. I want to talk today particularly about one project which represents the future of this city, and that is the Griffin Legacy, the plan for the revitalisation of a large and important part of the Parliamentary Triangle.

We have heard announced by this government a succession of cuts to a number of areas, particularly a direct and violent attack on the infrastructure, and investment in the Public Service, in this city. Included in these cuts—some $643 million in savings—is a planned reversal by the government of a number of decisions made by the former government with respect to the planning of Canberra. One of those was the decision, overseen by the National Capital Authority and supported by the Australian government—and, I thought at the time, by the then Labor opposition—to establish the Griffin Legacy, which was embodied in publications like this one here by the National Capital Authority, outlining a plan to complete the vision for Canberra outlined by Walter Burley Griffin almost a century ago.

In May 2007 the former government announced that it would provide more than $70 million over four years to fund the redevelopment of Constitution Avenue and the replacement of the Russell roundabout as part of that plan. These works were several years in the planning, having grown out of the National Capital Authority’s 2004 review of the Walter Burley Griffin plan for Canberra. This review examined how much of Griffin’s original vision had already been accomplished and what was yet to be fulfilled.

Constitution Avenue was identified as a key part of the Griffin plan which remained incomplete. Over several years, the NCA worked with architectural and town planning experts to put together a design which was faithful to Griffin’s original vision but met the city’s contemporary needs. Because the former coalition government had the foresight to recognise the significance of this project, those funds were committed. But with a single stroke of the pen the new government dashed this vision and, with it, years of painstaking work. On 8 February the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Mr Tanner, announced that $46.5 million would be slashed from the project as part of the government’s round of spending cuts. Just enough money would be allocated to develop the Russell roundabout—which, no doubt, the minister would use on his way to the airport—but not a cent more. The grand plans for the development of Constitution Avenue would be shelved indefinitely and with them any sense of vision for our nation’s capital.

I would like to describe, for the benefit of those philistines in the government who make these kinds of decisions, exactly what this $46 million cut will mean to the continuing development of the national capital. Currently, Constitution Avenue is a potholed, single-lane road which runs from City Hill in Civic out to the Defence hub at the top of Russell, passing through the heritage suburbs of Campbell and Reid. In the mornings and evenings overflow traffic from Parkes Way sits bumper to bumper along its entire length, spewing fumes into the old oak trees which line it. On one side, dirt car parks overflow with commuters from Canberra’s outer suburbs, creating a dusty jumble of bikes and cars. On the other side, the fading 1960s architecture of the Canberra Institute of Technology jars against the elegant silhouette of St John’s Church at Reid, Canberra’s oldest church. As the cars inch up the hill towards Russell, their drivers are tantalised with a brief glimpse up Anzac Parade, towards the solemn architecture of the War Memorial, and down the boulevard across Lake Burley Griffin to Parliament House beyond. But upon crossing Anzac Parade they are again surrounded by car parks, empty lots, and chain link fences all the way to Defence.

Contrast this reality with the vision laid down by Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin in their original plan for Canberra, which was faithfully developed by the National Capital Authority through its Griffin Legacy project. Griffin envisaged Constitution Avenue as the third arm of the parliamentary triangle, combining with Kings Avenue and Commonwealth Avenue to link the city centre with the seat of government. He drew Constitution Avenue as a grand boulevard, wide enough for vehicle and pedestrian traffic, lined with shady trees, and dotted with cafes, shops and cultural facilities. Cars would be ferried quickly away from the city by the overpass at the Russell roundabout, clearing Constitution Avenue of heavy traffic. As with the great boulevards of Europe, the avenue would become a destination—a place for people to meet, socialise, live and work.

Griffin intended Constitution Avenue to be Canberra’s vibrant city heart—the heart which visitors to Canberra, some members of this parliament amongst them, so often claim is missing. But thanks to the scorched-earth budgetary approach of this government, Griffin’s vision will not now see fulfilment. Short-term penny pinching has triumphed over strategic vision. In pointing out what a great loss this really is I would like to quote from the Australian Planning Institute, which in 1955 stated:

Griffin’s plan of 1912 won the international competition for the design of the Federal Capital City of Australia because it embodied, above all others, a central idea in civic design which would express in the finest possible way the heart of the new nation. The idea was derived from a ... deep sympathy with the national and aesthetic aspirations of the founders of the Commonwealth ... half a century of planning experience since can add nothing to its quality.

What the institute has so neatly captured in these few lines is the fact that Griffin’s plan for Canberra was about much more than just streets and roundabouts, bridges and lakes. It was about building a city which expressed through its design the best characteristics of Australian democracy—openness, egalitarianism, and freedom of communication and movement. In short, it was about building an ideal city.

Now, of course, something like that does not necessarily come cheap. But having invested as much money as this nation has in Griffin’s vision since 1927—not just in the last 10 years—surely it is worth protecting that investment. Surely we cannot just turn around one day and say: ‘Well, we’ve finished the national capital. The work’s done; the job’s done; what’s next?’ The work of building a truly great city is ongoing.

Obviously this government does not think so. Apparently clawing back financial savings is more important, no matter what the cost to our national city’s development might be. It is worth pointing out that this investment by the Commonwealth was not the only money required to make the Griffin Legacy plan come to fruition. It was designed to leverage a very large amount of private sector investment, as well, in the national capital. That is investment which now cannot take place. That augurs very badly for the financial future of this city in the next few years.

The government has also decided to compound this lack of vision by silencing the keepers of the legacy, the National Capital Authority, by cutting deeply into its budget and staff resources. There is a debate to be had about the role of the NCA, and about its relationship with the ACT’s own planning bodies. That is a debate which is going to take place in an inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, in which I will enjoy participating.

But the fact remains that the government has put the cart before the horse by ripping out a significant proportion of the NCA’s funding and staff without any analysis whatsoever of the agency’s capacity to bear this. Until this parliament decides otherwise through legislation, the NCA has a statutory responsibility to protect and promote Griffin’s vision for Canberra, yet it is hamstrung in that task by the loss of significant funding and 33 of its 89 staff.

That demonstrates once again, and powerfully, that this government simply has no vision. This is a government which is too busy counting its pennies to think and plan for the future. It is a government which is needlessly ripping money out of very valuable projects, like the project on Constitution Avenue, to create the illusion of fiscal toughness.

I do not object to the passage of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2007-2008 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2007-2008; I do object to the complete lack of vision displayed by a government which is prepared to cut funding for short-term political gain at the expense of long-term visionary planning. Our nation’s capital would not be the international marvel that it is today if it were not for successive governments having seen fit to invest in Walter Burley Griffin’s vision. I think the new government should seriously consider whether it wishes to be known as the one government—in a long succession of Australian governments of both political persuasions—which lacked the vision and the foresight to invest in a decent long-term plan for the national capital.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank all those who have contributed to the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2007-2008 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2007-2008 and seek the leave of the Senate to have other remarks concluding the second reading debate incorporated in Hansard. The usual courtesies of providing these comments have been extended to the opposition.

Leave granted.

The remarks read as follows—

I rise to bring the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2007-2008 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2007-2008 to a close, and I thank those members who have made a contribution.

The Additional Estimates Bills seek appropriation authority from Parliament for the additional expenditure of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, in order to meet requirements that have arisen since the last Budget. The total additional appropriation being sought through Additional Estimates Bills 3 and 4 this year is $3.3 billion.

This proposed appropriation arises from:

• changes in the estimates of program expenditure, due to variations in the timing of payments and forecast increases in program take-up,
• the reclassifications of certain appropriations; and
• policy decisions taken by the Government since the last Budget.

The Government has promised to apply sensible fiscal restraint to put downward pressure on inflation and interest rates, and boost investment in the productive capacity of the Australian economy. The Additional Estimates Appropriation Bills deliver a modest first instalment on these objectives.

I want to speak first about the Government’s savings initiatives and their effect on the Additional Estimates Appropriations. The appropriations proposed in these Bills reflect the effect of part-year savings in estimates resulting from the Government’s election promise to identify savings in budget outlays. A comprehensive review has commenced and has achieved initial savings from a number of sources, some of which I outline below.

The Government has decided not to proceed with some measures announced by the previous Government; for example, we will not be proceeding with are contributions to the Rugby League Hall of Fame and the Australian Rugby Academy producing a cash saving to the Budget this year of $35 million.

The first part-year instalment on the Government’s election promise to deliver an additional two per cent efficiency dividend will be achieved this financial year, with an estimated saving in expenses against annual departmental appropriations of around $100 million in 2007-08. These savings have served partially to offset an increase in departmental appropriations in the Additional Estimates. Efficiency dividend savings are estimated to increase to around $430 million in 2008-09.

In addition, the Government is also requiring a 30 per cent reduction in Ministerial and opposition staff, yielding a net saving of $15.4 million this year.

More efficient administration will also arise this year from the transition from Australian Workplace Agreements to collective enterprise agreements and statutory individual contracts. The Workplace Authority will achieve a funding reduction of $30 million in 2007-08 as a result of the simplified administration.

The Government is also redirecting savings in annual appropriations to superior policy outcomes including, to name but a few:

• Redirecting the savings from cancelling the previous Government’s Skills for the Future program work skill vouchers to fund our better plan for more Vocational Education and Training places as part of our Skilling Australia for the Future program. A part-year saving of $16.3 million will be achieved this year;
• Abolishing the Access Card project providing a saving this year of $250.6 million; and
• Abolishing Australian Industry Productivity Centres, saving $10.2 million this year and redirect the savings to a better targeted program.

A review of a number of programs has identified savings, including:

• a saving of $33 million this year for the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program;
• a review of the Ethanol Production Subsidy and Ethanol Distribution Programs has identified scope to reduce funding by $15.8 million while still meeting the objectives of the programs of increasing the availability of ethanol in the community;
• an examination of the Child Support Reforms communication strategy has identified a saving of $4.9 million for some activities that do not need to proceed, or can be delivered more cost effectively;
• a saving of $45.0 million has been identified for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority due to delays in the Authority’s establishment arising from delays in the passage of the Water Act 2007; and
• a saving of $5 million in departmental funding for the Bureau of Meteorology resulting from delays in recruitment arising from delays in the passage of the Water Act 2007 and the Bureau taking on its new water information functions.

These modest savings, which are a harbinger of more substantial savings to come, have served to contain the additional appropriation sought in these Bills.

I now take the opportunity to outline the more significant measures contained in the Bills.

• The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations will be provided with additional funding including:
• $100 million to establish the National Secondary Schools Computer Fund, which will provide grants of up to $1 million for schools to assist them to provide for new or upgraded information and communications technology for secondary school students in years 9 to 12; and
• $33.3 million for the Government’s Skilling Australia for the Future program which will provide a total of 450,000 additional training places over four years at a cost of $1.3 billion. Funding in 2007-08 will deliver 20,000 Vocational Education and Training places that are aimed at people currently outside the workforce.
• The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government will be provided with $2.5 million to establish Infrastructure Australia to ensure genuine rigor and accountability in infrastructure spending.
• Additional funding is proposed for the Department of Health and Ageing for investing in hospitals and community health under the Better Outcomes for Hospitals and Community Health program. This includes funds for specific commitments announced during the election such as:
• $10 million for the Flinders Medical Centre clinical teaching facilities upgrade; and
• $15 million for the Launceston Integrated Cancer Care Centre.
• The Department of Health and Ageing will also be provided with $33.1m to provide upfront capital grants and recurrent funding for the establishment of 31 GP Super Clinics around Australia, and to provide incentive payments to GPs and allied health providers to relocate to these clinics.
• The Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs will be provided:
• $57.9 million in Appropriation Bill No. 3 to provide: additional in-home support for people with disabilities being cared for by carers; additional supported employment places; and to ensure support is available to people in disability business services; and
• an increase of $30 million for the Commonwealth State and Territory Disability Agreement, to allow grants to the States for people with disabilities and their carers.

These Bills are important pieces of legislation which underpin the Government’s new direction – in both spending priorities and fiscal restraint and deserve widespread support.

I am not convinced, after listening to the members of the Opposition in the Senate Estimates hearings, that they actually appreciate the importance of these Bills and this new direction.

Their questions and comments suggest that the Opposition members have not only failed to grasp the seriousness of the inflation challenge – a headline inflation running at a level not seen in 16 years – but they are also in denial about their own responsibility for delivering this risk to the Australian economy and the Australian people. And this is after 10 interest rate rises, and 20 plus warnings from the Reserve Bank about critical capacity constraints in our economy.

In government, the Coalition had no regard for the budget process, no regard for the ERC and was about as familiar with a budget savings process as it was with a fair AWA. It showed no fiscal restraint during its 11 years in government and during the election campaign this record blew out even further.

There is no clearer picture of the Coalition’s fiscal record than the former Prime Minister spending a record $9 billion in the campaign launch – just weeks after the first time the RBA was forced to raise rates during the election campaign.

There is no clearer record of the Coalition’s fiscal record than their legacy of big government, with the cost of running government almost doubling over the ten years to 2007-08. This supposed party of small government was responsible for delivering:

• the most regulated and expensive industrial relations system this country has ever known;
• the biggest spend on advertising;
• the biggest spend on consultants even though public service employment has grown much faster than overall employment since 2000 (excluding Defence, ASI4 and AFP personnel, public service employment has grown by 25.3 per cent over that time – total employment growth has been 15.1 per cent);
• an increase in the number of senior public servants by 44 per cent; and
• an increase in the number of ministerial staff by 30 per cent.

Labor must now confront the serious task of re-focusing government on fiscal policy. We cannot rely on monetary policy alone to protect the Australian economy and its households from the inflation challenge.

Labor will confront the inflation legacy of the previous government by delivering a budget surplus of 1.5 per cent of GDP. To meet his task spending will need to be cut by $3 to $4 billion on top of savings announced during the election campaign.

Fiscal restraint and tough decisions on spending are required to ensure that the government does all it can to combat inflation. Choices must be made to ensure that downward pressure is placed on inflation – this means that lower order priorities or priorities of the previous government will be subject to close scrutiny.

This task has already commenced in these additional estimates bills. We stand by the difficult decisions we have had to make to start delivering on our promise to rein in inflation. We do not falter in the face of questions from Opposition Senators – particularly those who were on the staff of the former Treasurer or those who were former Sports Ministers and accustomed to taking the easy options and showing no restraint – the so-called “cheque was in the mail” culture.

The Government does not oppose the Second reading amendment moved by Senator Murray on behalf of the Australian Democrats. The Government has a clear policy to enhance budget transparency. This was set out in our Operation Sunlight policy document which complements the recommendations of the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee in its March 2007 report. Much work has been done on improving budget transparency and the Government expects to respond to the Senate Committee shortly. The Government is also committed to dealing, as soon as practicable, with the issue raised by the Senate Appropriations and Staffing Committee about the treatment of the ordinary annual services of the Government in the appropriation Bills.

I commend the Additional Estimates Bills to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

Bills read a second time.