Sandy Macdonald (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Carr. Minister, can you confirm that 85 CSIRO scientists will lose their jobs as a result of the government’s decision to slash $44 million from CSIRO’s budget?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Sandy Macdonald for this question. The budget expenditure on CSIRO has actually been increased over the next four years. It will rise from $633 million in 2007-08 to $676 million in 2008-09. There is actually a modest increase in the total expenditure for the CSIRO, which is consistent with the government’s commitment to responsible economic management.

We have said that reining in government expenditure is essential if we are to put downward pressure on inflation and we take the view, unlike the opposition, that the question of the inflationary challenge that this country faces is not a charade. It is not a fairytale, as the opposition would have us believe; it is real and it is hurting working families. While those opposite sit on their hands as inflation climbs to its highest level in 16 years, the government are determined to act. Inevitably, that means setting clear priorities and taking tough decisions. In line with that undertaking we gave before the election, CSIRO has been asked to deliver an extra two per cent efficiency dividend just like every other agency. The dividend applies only to CSIRO’s administrative expenditure, not to its overall appropriation. The government have also asked for an additional one-off dividend from CSIRO, which will save $39.8 million over the four years. After 11 years of the spending frenzy—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Abetz, you are continually interjecting. Give the minister a chance to answer.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have had 11 years of the former government spending in quite an indolent manner. It is time to modernise government spending and establish long-term directions for the future. For example, we have made huge commitments to clean energy. We will deliver at least $25 million in extra funding for CSIRO’s work on clean technologies. CSIRO may also be able to access the $100 million solar research money to be administered by the Australian Solar Institute.

This government recognises that CSIRO is a great Australian institution providing vital work in the national interest. It is a cornerstone of our innovation system. Our support for CSIRO is unwavering. Our support for science and innovation is as strong as ever; in fact, overall spending on science and innovation will reach a record high under this government of $6.37 billion in 2008-09—an increase of $170 million over 2007-08. Tuesday’s budget was all about balance. It was about exercising the discipline needed to fight inflation while making wise investments in Australia’s future. Let me assure you that CSIRO will be a vital part of that future.

Sandy Macdonald (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, you will recall that prior to the election you promised that you would revitalise CSIRO. Do you still plan to revitalise CSIRO, as you promised before the election?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand by that proposition. I stand by the proposition of our long-term and unwavering commitment to CSIRO as a cornerstone of our national innovation system. The amount of money that is actually being appropriated for CSIRO will rise from $663 million in 2007-08 to $676 million in 2008-09.

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

How much?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

$676 million in 2008-09.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That sounds like an increase.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a modest increase, I acknowledge, in the total appropriation. It is true that an efficiency dividend will apply, but there is an increase in the total expenditure to be provided to CSIRO. That will in effect mean $39.8 million for the organisation. That of course has to be seen in the context of an additional $25 million that will be provided for clean coal technologies through the research programs in those areas. (Time expired)

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator Conroy. Can the minister outline for the Senate how the budget addresses the need for infrastructure investment to underpin Australia’s long-term economic prosperity?

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

I thank Senator Sterle for his interest in this issue. The Rudd government is committed to laying the foundations for Australia’s future. We recognise that investment in key infrastructure is critical—unlike the neglect of 11½ years from those opposite. It is critical to expand Australia’s productive capacity, to address supply bottlenecks and to support future economic growth. Investment in key infrastructure is inherently linked with productivity. Growth in productivity means we can produce more goods and services with the same resources. It is the key to improving living standards. Benchmarked against our international competitors, Australia’s productivity performance has deteriorated. Productivity growth over the last five years has averaged 1.4 per cent—the lowest in 17 years. Those opposite delivered the lowest productivity growth in 17 years. The previous government let Australia fall behind in this area. It failed to invest adequately in the productive capacity of the economy to ensure Australia’s long-term prosperity.

The former government neglected our infrastructure across such areas as railways, ports, roads and communications infrastructure—neglected. Your team was not in the market, and you are still not. It squandered the proceeds from the mining boom—squandered and neglected it on short-term political bribes. That is all those on the other side actually are capable of: short-term political bribes and ignoring the growing bottlenecks.

For too long our national budgets have been short-sighted. The previous government failed to focus on the big challenges facing our country in the next decade and beyond. The budget begins a new era of responsible investing in Australia’s long-term future needs. This budget includes three new national funds that will provide more than $40 billion in capital investment in infrastructure, education and health.

Ross Lightfoot (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s not going to be a slush fund, is it?

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

Unlike when those opposite created the Communications Fund and Senator Barnaby Joyce described it as a slush fund—he actually described it as a slush fund, Senator Lightfoot—we are actually interested in long-term benefits for this country. These funds have been established to enable investment—

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Could you direct the minister to table exactly where that was said?

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order, Senator Joyce. You can seek to make a personal explanation at another time, but that is not a point of order.

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

These funds have been established to enable investment in infrastructure that will modernise and reinvigorate the Australian economy. The government will invest $20 billion in a new Building Australia Fund to finance investment in critical infrastructure across the nation: roads, rail, ports—isn’t that right, Senator Sherry? The government will invest $11 billion in a new Education Investment Fund, which will provide a financing source for infrastructure priorities in the higher education and vocational training sectors. The government will invest $10 billion in a new Health and Hospitals Fund to finance improvements to hospitals and the healthcare system. (Time expired)

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Human Services, Senator Ludwig. I refer to the looming job losses at Centrelink imposed as part of the government’s budget. Can the minister advise how many workers will lose their jobs at Centrelink? Can the minister guarantee that no Centrelink staff will be forced to join the longer unemployment queues that are forecast as a result of Labor’s budget?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Troeth for the question. In terms of the portfolio, I think it is worthwhile going back to some of the figures that have been bandied about, quite erroneously and quite wrongly. The burden, of course, should not be lifted from where it lies. It lies with the scaremongering from the opposition. Senator Coonan has gone on the record a number of times claiming that there will be 2,000 job cuts from Centrelink as a result of Tuesday’s budget. This is a figure that was provided by Centrelink CEO Jeff Whalan in supplementary budget estimates.

The figure Mr Whalan provided as the best estimate of Centrelink’s position for 2008-09 was based on the 2007-08 portfolio additional estimates statement, and Mr Whalan made it clear that the figure came with a number of caveats. He made that clear at that time. Even though, at that time at estimates, I took Senator Coonan through Centrelink’s funding model—a model that she approved as a member of the former government—the shadow spokesperson chose effectively to play fast and loose with the truth on this. Senator Coonan clutched at straws like a drowning shadow minister who, without the resources of a department, is all too clearly out of her depth, quite frankly, on this matter. Senator Coonan and Senator Troeth were wrong about that—a reduction of 200 does not equal a loss of 2,000, except possibly in the increasingly wacky world that the Liberals seem to have now put themselves in, given that they have neglected this area since they set up the department in 2004. This is wanton disregard of the truth. If they had looked at the portfolio budget statement, it would have provided an accurate picture. But of course they remain a lazy opposition in this respect.

When they make those statements which are incorrect, it unnecessarily worries and puts stress on Centrelink staff and their families. It is a worry that need not be put there, because service delivery is an important role that Centrelink provides. It provides for working families, pensioners, students and those looking for work—something the opposition seem to have failed to appreciate in the last 11 years.

The reduction in Centrelink staff of 200 ASL, reflecting the lower levels in customer numbers—people who are looking for work, in particular—is the number that is impacting the individual agency, not the wacky number that Senator Coonan has nailed her tail to the mast on. In managing the portfolio, it is important that so many of the tasks that are done by Centrelink be maintained. What the opposition fail to appreciate was a model, which they put in place themselves when they were in government, that ensured that Centrelink staff numbers would reduce as a consequence of unemployment reducing, which is good news— (Time expired)

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. It took Senator Ludwig four minutes to actually establish that, yes, there will be fewer Centrelink staff. So, with fewer staff, how will Centrelink cope with the expected 134,000 more Newstart claims from workers who have lost their jobs as a result of the Rudd Labor government’s budget?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can remind the opposition, of course, that it is their interest rate rises over the last 10 years that have contributed to the position that we are now in. We are fighting inflation; we are putting downward pressure on inflation; we are consistent with ensuring that there is downward pressure on interest rates that are a consequence of the Liberals’ neglect over the last 11 years. I answered with the figure of Centrelink staff reductions—200 across Centrelink front-line staff and total staffing, which is in the order of about 26,000 employees. This portfolio is focused on delivering services to the front line, delivering services to those people in need, delivering services to those people that the opposition, when they were in government, neglected over the last 11 years. It is extraordinary for the opposition now to complain about a system that they put in place. My job now is to address the neglect that they left. (Time expired)