Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Ludwig) and the Minister for Science and Research (Senator Farrell) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

Contrary to the slur on me by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, which was not corrected by the President, that I had got the letter and had not passed it on, the letter I was quoting from, from the Minister for National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing in Queensland, the Hon. Steve Dickson, was sent directly not only to Mr Burke but also to Senator Ludwig. Those letters were written on Tuesday, and they were also posted on Tuesday.

That does not get to the substantive issue, which is: why is the Gillard government more interested in growing grass than in the fate of 300,000 live animals? You hear the Greens and the Labor Party carrying on about cruelty to animals—here is cruelty on an unprecedented scale: 300,000 cattle are about to die for reasons of natural calamity, drought, bushfire and the stupid decision of the Gillard government some time ago to ban live cattle exports without any warning.

Forget about relief to farmers, important though that is. It is important, and the Queensland government will be doing what it can to help, but that is another question and I do not want to get distracted. The rules about that, and what relief will do, really will not help the landowners and they certainly will not help the fate of 300,000 live animals. Where are the Greens? I do not even see them in the chamber. I would have thought they would be jumping up and down on their Senate desks asking what the government is doing about the fate of these 300,000 animals that are going to die not a death from having a leg broken or being mistreated for five minutes but a lingering, horrible death from starvation.

The Queensland government—applauded, I might say, by the Queensland RSPCA—has a practical and sensible solution. Their plan is to put these cattle into areas that only recently were locked up by the previous Queensland government and the Gillard government as part of the nature reserve system. They have grass in them and they are in proximity to the areas that have been drought declared. They are suitable for the agistment of cattle. So there is a solution at hand—an easy solution. Sure, we want to preserve in Australia what we need to preserve, and that can be done. But carefully moving these cattle into national reserve systems can save them, and that will help with the financial and social welfare of the people who own those cattle and who are facing bankruptcy, loss of their homes, loss of their businesses and loss of their kids' schooling because of the live cattle ban, exacerbated by a following bushfire and then the drought.

Senator Ludwig says that he innocently misled the chamber, but he did not miss the opportunity of making some specious remark to me. As I say, I cannot understand why the President would pull me up for accusing Senator Ludwig of being a liar but not address his comment. But that is another issue.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is just a repeat offender.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, I have not called you and I can deal with this matter. Senator Macdonald, you cannot repeat the accusation and, equally, you have to be careful about making remarks concerning the President. It would assist the chamber if you withdraw your last remarks and continue the debate.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw them, Deputy President. I noted the President quite forcibly stopped me calling Senator Ludwig a certain term, but when Senator Ludwig accused me of being the messenger and holding on to these letters, no apology was sought. Quite frankly, I do not care what Senator Ludwig says about me, but it shows that Senator Ludwig—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Is this on a point of order or has he gone back to his—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a continued abuse of points of order by Senator Macdonald, who is incapable of withdrawing graciously. He always has to follow up with a lecture demonstrating just how ungracious he is.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, there was no formal point of order. I dealt with the matter. Senator Macdonald complied with my request and Senator Macdonald is continuing with the debate.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can well understand why Senator Wong will do everything possible to stop me highlighting the fate of these 300,000 live animals, which are going to die a horrible death of starvation because of the actions of Senator Wong's government, the Gillard government, in not allowing the simple, practical solution put forward by the Queensland government, which is in touch with people and understands these issues. I do not want to make politics out of this. I just plead with anyone on the other side who might have any sense of compassion—I do not see any of them there—to do something to assist the Queensland government with a practical response to what is an animal catastrophe. (Time expired)

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to respond to taking note of answers this afternoon. I did think that, two days after handing down one of the most significant budgets in this country, we might have been taking note of the progress of this country and the two major reforms we announced on Tuesday night. Let me take this opportunity to put some facts on the record about grazing cattle in Queensland national parks. Unlike you, Senator Macdonald, I do not have the privilege of any letter from Minister Ludwig or the Queensland government, but I do have a bit of background on this issue. Perhaps for the next couple of minutes we could very quietly and carefully put some facts down.

We know that there has been a call for national parks in Queensland to be used to graze drought-affected cattle. There has been the article in the Australian claiming that our environment minister, Mr Tony Burke, has rejected a plan to let starving cattle loose in conservation reserves and national parks in Queensland. Apparently the article says that that has infuriated the state government and drought-hit graziers. Mr Tony Burke is a former agriculture minister; obviously he makes those statements with some background from his former portfolio. I am led to believe that he has told the Australian that he did not have an interest in helping to wreck the states conservation areas. I have to say that Australia's and Queensland's national parks were established for very good reasons. This form of tenure offers real protection, not to grazing drought-affected cattle but to protect threatened ecosystems and species. So any decision to—

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. The growth of the number of feral pigs in national parks is a disgrace.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Heffernan, that is not a point of order.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know it is not. There are800,000 feral pigs in the Northern Territory.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Heffernan, that is a debating point.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let us bring feral pigs into the argument. Senator Heffernan, come back! Now you are talking about something I can talk about and that is pig shooting in the Northern Territory. So sit right down because now you are on the program! I actually know about feral pigs and pig shooting in the Territory. You should know that. So come back down!

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have got to get out of here!

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Crossin, do not talk across the chamber, please, and do not encourage Senator Heffernan. And Senator Heffernan, you cannot speak while not in your seat.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scullion could well assist me, not that I have actually been pig shooting.

Opposition senators: Oh!

Do I look like a sophisticated lady who would go pig shooting? I have shared many a beer with many people, probably at the Humpty Doo pub, swapping stories about pig shooting. Senator Macdonald, if you want to ask questions about pig shooting and starving cattle, I might be able to help you. Lately in the Northern Territory we have had the issue of starving horses. I am giving it my best shot here, seeing that I would really like to have talked about the budget and given that I really want to know whether Mr Abbott this evening is going to commit to the $70 million we have committed to build the hospital at Palmerston in the Northern Territory and the $38 million for a new paediatric ward. That is the crucial issue on my mind today.

As you can well imagine, I am trying to establish the very fine line between protecting national parks and assisting farmers in Queensland, even though they may have 300,000 starving head of cattle. The administration of the EPBC Act is a matter for my colleague Minister Burke and I am advised that he is yet to receive a proposal from the Queensland government. I understand Mr Burke has been clear that national parks should be there for people to enjoy nature and not for cattle grazing. So we have announced the Farm Finance package. We are trying to support Australian farmers and graziers who face enormous challenges, including producers in Queensland. We want to ensure that farmers are equipped to deal with all of the differences they face in the climate, rather than to look for an ad hoc solution to open up a national park in a conservation area. As I said, we announced a national drought reform measure in the budget and that is the Farm Finance package. That is the way to resolve this issue—to support those producers. (Time expired)

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What has characterised this government from the word go, going right back to 2007, is the great chasm between its rhetoric—its sparkling rhetoric at times—and its policy implementation. That has been the problem of this government since the beginning. It is always overpromising and it is always underdelivering. Someone else—and it will be a coalition government—will, in the end, have to pick up the pieces. When you go back, it does not matter whether you look at computers in schools, pink batts, overpriced school halls or any of the rest of it—today it is about the NBN—it is the same thing. There is always sparkling rhetoric and there is always underdelivery, tomorrow's headlines being more important than tomorrow's outcomes and tomorrow's achievements. It is spin over substance.

I have always accepted that the Prime Minister, Senator Kim Carr and Senator Chris Evans are genuinely concerned about education, higher education in particular. I accept that they all believe that it is transformative and that they take it very seriously. I have always believed that. But, if you make promises, you must properly fund them; otherwise, it is just empty rhetoric. If you come forward with a profound policy change—and uncapping the number of undergraduate places at Australian universities is a significant policy change—you must adequately fund those places. If you do not, it is merely empty rhetoric and you are leading undergraduate students along a rocky path. They are not being properly resourced. I accept that it is important we encourage kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, kids from rural and regional areas and Aboriginal kids to go to university—but only if the project is properly resourced and quality and standards are maintained.

In my question today to Senator Farrell, I argued implicitly that funding per student had fallen. I draw the chamber's attention to a publication put out by Universities Australia, A smarter Australia: policy advice for an incoming government. On the final page it says:

Despite recent, significant, and much-welcomed increases, base funding per student has fallen in real terms from 2008 to 2013 by 1.6 per cent, and has fallen 22 per cent since 1995. Without arresting this decline, Australia will continue to fall behind.

That 1.6 per cent fall in real terms was before this budget. This budget cuts funding to higher education across the board by five per cent.

This is the problem. If you want to uncap the system and let many more students come in, you must adequately fund it. It is the worst possible outcome to have kids who are less academically prepared and then to fund the system inadequately. In fact, you really need to do the opposite. What is happening today is that more young Australians who are less academically prepared are going to university, putting far greater stress on the system. You must adequately resource that system; otherwise, what happens? The quality and the standards in our Australian universities fall. I know that every senator in this chamber shares the view that our universities are essential not only as a source of productivity and innovation—key contributors to our economy—but as Australia's largest services export industry. Brand Australia cannot suffer a decline in standards and quality.

What worries me about the current government's approach is this: if you continue to allow more and more students in and funding declines per student, you will have a decline in quality and standards. That might cause the export industry to decline. That is bad enough, that exports are compromised, but worse is that those students—students the government, Australia, has encouraged to go to university—will not be properly serviced. In the end, it is not only bad economically—although that is bad enough—but very bad socially. Our students deserve much better.

Matt Thistlethwaite (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased that Senator Mason has raised the issue of higher education, animated as his contribution was. When it comes to education there are clear and stark differences between the approach of the Gillard government and that of the opposition. The stark differences are best underlined by the following anecdote.

Last year, I had the good fortune to visit Mungindi, a town on the border between Queensland and New South Wales. I was up there to open their brand-new trade training centre, a $2.5 million investment by the Gillard government in an education pathway for students at Mungindi Central School. Mungindi is a town with deep social problems. It has a very large Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population.

At the conclusion of the ceremony to open the trade training centre—the centre will provide hospitality trade training and metalwork trade training—I was talking to a young Indigenous girl. She was telling me how excited she was about the prospect of becoming a chef. She had finally decided what she wanted to do in life and she was now working hard to become a chef—this was a young girl in year 10. The school had built a vegetable patch out the back of the school, so they were not only teaching the students to cook but teaching them how to cook healthy food. This young Indigenous girl, this year 10 student, was telling me that she now goes home and teaches her mother how to cook healthy food. She was telling me that her mother had never been taught how to cook healthy food. It was not the way that they did things in her family. That is real social change, brought about by this government's investment in vocational education and training in schools for those people who may not be academically minded, providing them with an opportunity to aspire to a form of education that is suitable to their circumstances.

What people have to understand is that the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Party, those opposite, have announced that they will cancel the Trade Training Centres in Schools Program should they come to office. They will cancel that program that has been so innovative and has been providing opportunities for young people, like that young Indigenous girl from Mungindi that I spoke to, to get a better education. That is the difference between Labor and the opposition when it comes to education.

We know that we have a problem with school education in this country. The results demonstrate that Australian students' performance is slipping down the scales internationally when we are compared to other nations. We are slipping as a nation. So we as a government determined that we would deal with this, and we asked the Gonski panel to consult widely on this issue and come up with a set of recommendations. They did. They consulted throughout the country, with academics, with principals, with teachers, with parents and with students, and they developed a new model for funding education in this country. Labor is delivering that model, and we wait to hear, hopefully tonight, what the opposition will say in respect of funding decent education in this country.

Senator Mason raised the point of university education, and I am glad he did, because this Labor government has done more to advance university education and, importantly, the accessibility of university education for students from all backgrounds throughout this country than any other government in this nation's history. We have grown university funding by close to 60 per cent. Through the Commonwealth Grant Scheme, funding for universities has increased from $3.5 billion in 2007 to $5.8 billion in 2010, a 66 per cent increase. We have uncapped university places, so there are now around 150,000 extra students attending university throughout Australia because of the changes that this government made. And we introduced a more generous rate of indexation for higher education funding in 2012, resulting in indexation growth of 3.8 per cent in 2012 and 3.9 per cent in 2013. That is this government's commitment to funding education at all levels within our society. (Time expired)

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this afternoon to refer to a press release put out by Catherine King, the member for Ballarat in the other place. With great fanfare on Tuesday night, Ms King announced that the budget provided $9.1 million for the Ballarat freight hub. The press release said:

The Federal Budget delivered tonight includes funding of $9.1 million towards Stage 1 …

Then Ms King yesterday said: 'Under this Labor government, the funding is on the table. It is there this financial year.' And on radio 3BA yesterday, I understand, Ms King said: 'The Ballarat freight hub to come into effect next year, which is, you know, only a short, you know—we're almost halfway through the year now, so it's to come into effect next year; in other words, in seven months time.'

So what actually was put into the budget, do you think, Mr Deputy President? What I can tell the chamber is that there is no funding this year for the hub. We know there is no funding. As John Fitzgibbon, the Liberal Party candidate for Ballarat, said, this is an important project, but what Mr Fitzgibbon said, and what I say, is that the minister responsible was being completely untruthful when she said that this would be funded this year. It was an untruth. It is no secret that Ms King is joined at the hip with the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, and with the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. As we know, she was given an eleventh-hour job because of her support for Ms Gillard. But the reason that she is joined at the hip is that she suffers from the same malaise as the Prime Minister and Mr Swan, and that malaise is: all spin and no substance.

In the time left to me, I will briefly go through the budget papers so that the utter fallacy of Ms King's press release can be seen by all who would like to have a look at it. What Ms King's own department said is this:

Accordingly, after consulting with the State Government and Infrastructure Australia , we are now in a position to release a preliminary schedule of new projects to be funded and delivered over the five year life of our next Nation Building Program (2014-15 to 2018-19).

There was no funding allocated for this precinct, for this hub, in this year's budget. The very best that Ms King, if she were being truthful about this, could have said was that, if this second Nation Building Program money is funded in next year's budget, then there may be funding allocated between 2014-15 and possibly as late as 2018-19—not in this financial year. It was a complete untruth, a deliberate attempt by Ms King to get herself elected, when everyone knows that Ms Catherine King is now Canberra's representative in Ballarat and she is no longer Ballarat's representative in Canberra. Ms King has abrogated her responsibility to the people of the Ballarat electorate. Fortunately, we have someone there by the name of John Fitzgibbon, the Liberal Party candidate, ready, willing and able to stand up and start representing his community. If Ms King thinks she can get re-elected on the back of a complete untruth about a so-called budget measure, then, quite frankly, I think she is sadly mistaken.

I also want to speak about another broken promise of this government. The member for Eden-Monaro, Dr Michael Kelly—I think he goes by the title of 'Dr' these days—has been running around with the military superannuants for about four weeks before the budget, saying, 'Listen—don't talk about it; I'm going to get this fixed. I'll get this fixed.' Do you think this budget had anything in there for the fair indexation of DFRDB and DFRB military superannuants? No, they did not. So Mr Kelly from the other place— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.