 |
Berowra Enews Update Autumn 2009 |
 |
|
Welcome to Autumn 2009 E-News Dear constituent/supporter We are mindful how sensitive our environment is with the recent bushfires in Victoria. As locals we fully understand the tremendous suffering that bushfires cause, often threatening our own local area in the northern part of my electorate over the years. However, these bushfires were horrendous with the cost of lives, impacting on so many families and extended families, the cost of livestock and that of grazing lands and pastures. On another note I know we all feel for constituents who have been retrenched in certain areas of work as it impacts on the physical and emotional wellbeing of their households and understand the concerns of others who have expressed concerns over their own job security. It is hoped that Australia will be cushioned from some of the impact of the extremes of global financial problems. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call my office and they will assist constituents in any way possible on Federal matters important to you. In this issue:
APPROPRIATION (NATION BUILDING AND JOBS) BILL (NO. 1) 2008-2009 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Mr RUDDOCK (Berowra) (10.42 pm)—I do not engage the time of the House a great deal in debate but the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills are important, the issues are important and, contrary to the suggestion of the member for Fowler, let it be clear that members on this side of the House do care. We care a great deal about Australia. Mrs Irwin—Well support the bills. Support them. Cross the floor. Have the courage. The SPEAKER—The member for Fowler ought not to interject other than from her seat. It is disorderly. Mr RUDDOCK—I have to say that bipartisanship is something that I like to see, but bipartisanship has to be earned. You do not simply put down your proposition and demand unthinking support, and in my view it is certainly the case that this government, instead of looking for culprits and people to blame for the difficulties that it now faces, ought to give credit where credit is due. The first point I would make about where credit is due is in relation to the strength of the Australian economy. Our position is very different from many others. It is largely because of the very hard work of the previous Prime Minister and Treasurer that we are in a unique position amongst developed economies. We did not get there by accident. We got there because there was a good deal of hard work and difficult decision making, and those approaches in the end paid a dividend. By paying off debt we were able to create an environment in which people were able to prosper— people in business and people employed. We created very high levels of employment. We were in a situation where this government came to office and inherited a very substantial surplus. I recognise that the crisis that we are said to be facing was not generated domestically, and the one credit I give to the government members is that they have not blamed Howard and Costello for the crisis. But there is an inkling of it when you hear terminology like ‘neoliberal’—whatever that means. I think it is meant to model itself on the neocons of the United States. I want to come to that, but I want to come to it in the context of the approach to this issue. I have been surprised about the extent to which so many people have been, in a sense, in a state of denial. I went to a major conference at the end of 2007. It was called the Davos Connection and it was organised by people who often attend the Davos function in Switzerland. They organise an event here in Australia, and I know the Leader of the Opposition—as he then was, now the Prime Minister—has attended such meetings. These people are informed, and I heard in debate some very interesting propositions. They were that Australia, notwithstanding what was already evidently occurring in the United States of America, would not experience the same difficulties as the United States. And the reason for it is that we were ‘decoupled’. I had not heard this language very much before, but it was quite interesting language. It was predicated on the basis that Australia, having, as the Labor Party would assert, entered into very significant resource developments, had largely got there by accident. I would dispute that. I do not think it was some purely accidental set of arrangements that put us in a position to be competitive and able to supply other countries. There were many difficult policy decisions that we had to take to get us to a point where we were competitive in those areas. And the view was that China would experience no difficulty. Sure, it might lose some markets to the United States, but it had a whole host of other markets. It would develop its economy domestically and it would continue to grow. And in those circumstances, as a supplier of raw materials—of resources— Australia would be largely insulated. We now know that that is not true. In fact, it surprised me—but it certainly proves to me—that in these issues you cannot assume that there is somebody who is the font of all knowledge. There is no-one who will be able to tell you exactly what needs to be done and how to manage the issues that we face. I do not think there is any one person or any one party that is able to bring together that degree of experience. I do want to share some thoughts with members of the House about the nature of the problem that China faces, and that we face. I read a very interesting article in the Australian Financial Review by Colleen Ryan and Stephen Wyatt. It was about China, and it compared China’s position today with that of the United States of America in the Great Depression. It was making a number of points about what some economists have been saying. They have suggested that the global downturn is, in fact, going to exert a much greater toll on China than anybody initially imagined, and that there were growing concerns that the country may become the real victim of this slump. The words that were used in the article were ‘just as the US suffered most during the Great Depression in the 1930s’—and then it refers to economists, such as Michael Pettis, a professor at Beijing University, who believes that there are deeply worrying parallels between China’s economy in 2009 and the US economy in 1930: Both economies had experienced heavy rates of urbanisation and industrialisation, and the US in 1930, like China in 2009, witnessed a sudden collapse in its export markets. As a result of collapsing exports, in the United States in 1930 it was plagued with massive industrial overcapacity. United States domestic consumption could go nowhere near absorbing the might of the US productive machine. Similarly, China in 2009 has seen its export markets collapse and, like the United States in the 1930s, now faces massive overcapacity, and its domestic consumption cannot nearly absorb the goods produced by this productive behemoth. Those words rang alarm bells with me. I do not hear it elsewhere but it is a matter of very substantial concern. We do not know what the impact of what is happening in China now will be on Australia, but I suggest it has the potential to be somewhat worse than we have seen and I am not sure that the measures that are being proposed here are really going to deal with that sort of environment. I note also in reports today that there are some comments from the OECD that ought to sound for all Australians some fairly significant alarm bells. The OECD deputy secretary-general, Aart de Geus, warned that despite the fiscal action and rate cuts, the Australian economy would be damaged by the current global recession: “Australia could be potentially one of the hardest hit economies,” Mr de Geus told a Sydney University audience. “Not only does Australia suffer from the reverberations of the global economic downturn, it is also hit by a negative terms-of-trade shock, due to the steep falls in the prices of its “Australia’s dependence on foreign markets to finance its external deficit represents potential economic fault lines.” These are matters that ought to give members of the government great concern. They are of concern to me and they are of concern to members of the parliament on this side of the House. It is not a question of looking at who to blame; it is a question of thinking constructively and cooperatively about how we address these sorts of issues. I have not seen that approach being taken, I regret to say. The government seems to have been looking for somebody to blame. It is very interesting that not so long ago, when the government did not recognise we had a problem internationally of the sort that we are facing, they believed we had an inflation problem. They wanted to talk it up and they did, with comments like: ‘The inflation genie is out of the bottle.’ Those comments were designed to blame Howard and Costello for an inflation problem the government thought they had inherited. There was no inflation problem, but the comments had a significant impact in terms of encouraging the Reserve Bank to take some pretty tough decisions in relation to interest rates—decisions that were taken at a time that was not particularly beneficial to the Australian economy, leaving us in a far more difficult position than we otherwise would have been in. My experience in public life is that in politics if you make the right decisions the politics looks after itself. If you look at Costello and Howard in office you see that, in making the right decisions, the economy came together in the right way for the benefit of the government of the day and the Australian people. As the magnitude of this crisis has become even more apparent, the government have been looking around for somebody to blame, as we hear in all their speeches. I do not know whether the member for Throsby, who will speak after me, will talk about neocons or neoliberals, but the member for Fowler did, as have many others through this debate, taking the lead from the Prime Minister. I do not think that in dealing with these situations he needs to look around to try and find labels of that sort and to try and find others to blame. I do not know what the relationships of people in the Labor Party are like, although they are obviously fairly dynamic in New South Wales. A fellow called Michael Costa is a former Labor Treasurer of New South Wales. He is a man who has played a very active role in the trade union movement. If I were in the Labor Party, I suppose I would think he had contributed significantly to the party’s wellbeing. Mr Laurie Ferguson—This part is tongue in cheek. Mr RUDDOCK—I would be interested to hear from the member for Reid if he has some insights as to why Michael Costa might write as he does. He wrote an article today in the Telegraph and I think it is worth quoting. He said: IT wouldn’t have mattered what the Prime Minister announced in his fiscal stimulus package—it won’t be sufficient to counter the impacts of the current global economic difficulties. Kevin Rudd should stop talking down the economy. Yes, we do have problems but we are well-positioned to see our way through. Constant exaggerated and negative commentary creates uncertainty among investors and consumers. What is the point of providing a $10 billion fiscal stimulus and then scaring the recipients? Is it any wonder many people chose to save their portion of the stimulus? I thought they were very perspicacious comments, and people should take some note of them. We should think more about the problems that we have to deal with and be very cognisant of the importance that confidence plays. Coming from the very strong fiscal position that the government inherited, it should be building on that and building confidence. There are no neocon or neoliberal culprits out there to blame. Thatcher, Reagan and, obviously, Howard are being pointed to as having a particular philosophical approach which it is said may have helped bring about this crisis, but that ignores the roles of people like Blair, Brown, the New Zealand Labour government, Keating and Hawke, all of whom walked on the same stage. I do not think you can blame any so-called neocons. An article by Makin from the Griffith University The looming recession was clearly not made in Australia. It has resulted from global banking problems which have squeezed liquidity worldwide, decimated asset values and shredded business and consumer confidence. It will not be over until these central problems are rectified. Budgetary measures that boost unproductive public spending are not the solution and are not risk-free for financially globalised economies like ours. So how did we get into this mess? What was the problem in the global banking system? Some will say it was the collapse of Lehman Brothers, but it was more than that. It was in fact not a neocon outcome but what Labor members would regard as a social democrat approach that brought this situation about. There are any number of articles you can read about why in 1999 certain lending approaches were encouraged by the Clinton government of the United States of America, perhaps for the right motives, where a great deal of borrowing was put in place for properties in which there was very little capital brought to bear by the borrowers and where United States financial institutions were stood over to ensure that so-called low-doc or subprime loans were made. I read an article by Vincent Gioia which said: How did this happen? In its infinite wisdom congress established two organizations known as “Fannie Mae” and “Freddie Mac”, euphemisms for the Federal National Mortgage Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages on the secondary market, pool them, and sell them as government-backed securities to investors on the open market. This secondary mortgage market increases the supply of money available for mortgage-lending and increases the money available for new home purchases by freeing up money in lending institutions to make still more loans. It went on to say: … Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the vehicles to place a house in every man’s future just like the “chicken in every pot” thing decades before. Tough new government regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that ENDS Condolences— Victorian Bushfire Victims—Report from Main Committee Mr RUDDOCK (Berowra) (5.14 pm)—I rise to support the condolence motion moved by the Deputy Prime Minister and supported by all who have spoken to date in this debate. I add my condolences to the families who have lost loved ones, my commiserations to those who have lost property and assets, and I bring with me the condolences and commiserations of the electors of Berowra to the parliament and to my colleagues, particularly those colleagues whose electorates have been affected. In the time that I have been in the parliament I have witnessed many events of great enormity and tragedy, often in other parts of the world. There are not many that impact upon Australia, but when you think of the Australians who lost their lives in the Bali bombing it was significant in this parliament. The services in the Great Hall reflected that. But I do not think I have seen, since 1973, the activities of the parliament truncated in the way in which they have been so that a universal view can be conveyed to the Australian community about the enormity of the loss that has been suffered, nor do I think that I have heard such fine addresses by colleagues. When I think about the member for McMillan speaking yesterday, joined by the members for Wannon, Mallee, Casey and Bendigo, when I think about the fine addresses today from the members for Gippsland and Indi and add to that members affected by flood who acknowledged the enormity of the disaster that is being suffered in Victoria—the members for Herbert, Dawson and Kennedy—this has been a remarkable couple of days. I was gratified today to hear that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have met to discuss the way in which we might move forward in common purpose. At times of emergency, there is an expectation that that will happen, and I certainly hope it can continue, because the wide range of issues that we have to deal with demand it. I thank the Prime Minister, as the Leader of the Opposition did, for his engagement with members of the parliament generally and his messages of support and encouragement. Particularly the members who have received them have acknowledged the importance of that common purpose. It is in that context that I look around this chamber. I see the members for Bradfield and Werriwa, and they will know, as I do, that fire is a present threat for many of us in the outlying areas of our great cities, where you have great national parks and open spaces adjoining urban and semiurban areas. So when I hear something of the horror that people have experienced, while I know that my constituents have not had the same level of adverse experience, nevertheless constituents know about the enormity of threat that fire poses. In 1957 I fought my first bushfire in Sydney with a hessian bag. In that sense, I felt overwhelmed as significant parts of Hornsby, including St Peter’s Church, were lost as the fire came up out of the Berowra parklands and Galston Gorge. We have had more recent fires. I relate to those who have spoken with horror at the prospect that somebody may deliberately light fires. Close to my own home at Pennant Hills, out of the Lane Cove National Park, we used to regularly experience bushfires that we now know were always deliberately lit, because the culprit was found and prosecuted. Since that time we have not had any fires, except I think the one that was at the eastern end of Lane Cove National Park, adjacent to the member for Bradfield’s electorate, last week. I know the enormity of the anguish that people experience as they think about fire. We have lost life and property in my constituency but we have not experienced the enormity that our Victorian colleagues have had to endure. It is right that we should mourn and commiserate with them. It is right that we should express our condolences in the way that we have. But it is also important that we learn the lessons. At times I have had some responsibility for assisting in relation to the work of Emergency Management Australia, an agency within the Attorney- General’s Department that has had responsibility for liaising with states and territories and ensuring that Commonwealth support, where it is possible to assist, is available. I notice that the Commonwealth disaster plan has been activated. It has happened again and, as the Prime Minister acknowledged, EMA played a role in ensuring that the Defence Force could bring together the tents, stretchers, sleeping bags, portable beds and mattresses as well as the heavy machinery—the bulldozers and loaders—and the chainsaw crews, the aerial imagery and the defence personnel who can provide search and recovery assistance. The Commonwealth disaster plan provides the ability to gather together the support that the Commonwealth can offer—and it is appropriate that it should—but the Commonwealth’s role is quite limited. While Emergency Management Australia provides that critical support—and it has done so again, through Tony Pearce, its director, briefing the Prime Minister—you can see from the arrangements outlined by the Prime Minister that the royal commission will be a Victorian royal commission. The Victorian government will establish, under Victorian legislation, a Victorian bushfire reconstruction and recovery authority. The personnel are eminently well qualified; nevertheless they are the choice of Victoria. While I am not critical of those arrangements that were put in place to respond, or of the activities of those that did respond—I know the enormity of it and the difficulty associated with the response and I know of the professional and volunteer support that has been given—I think we will have to reflect on whether or not there should be some further Commonwealth engagement in relation to the way in which these issues are taken forward in the future. I offer the comments constructively when I say that. I have spoken, long before this tragedy, about reviewing some of the material that has been prepared by ASPI, and I noted that in the Smith review, which was undertaken in a broader context dealing with national security issues, it was proposed that Emergency Management Australia be integrated into an Australian emergency management committee with a national security adviser as the chair. This was seen as providing enhanced capacity to respond to an all-hazards approach to dealing with emergencies that we face. My view, as I said in a speech that I made in Victoria several days before these fires, is that the Commonwealth needs to go further. Emergency Management Australia has played an important role in Australia’s response to and recovery from many disasters, both locally and abroad, but I believe that that role needs to be expanded along the lines suggested by ASPI, to include a greater command role for disaster recovery and response. That is a matter that the government might be prepared to consider. I think its role needs to be more than just providing grants for volunteers, education at Mount Macedon and grants to enhance facilities of agencies. I oversaw its implementation. Our Rural Fire Service in New South Wales has seen increased participation by volunteers. While volunteerism has been in decline in so many areas in Australia, it was interesting that, in that one area, where people’s property and life were threatened, there had been increased voluntary participation, particularly in New South Wales. I believe that the role of the former government’s programs in attracting people to volunteer was important. I very much want to contribute positively in this debate, but I more particularly want to associate the electors of Berowra, my constituents—who understand something of the loss that the Victorians have experienced—with this condolence motion and the commiserations that have been offered in terms of the loss. My electors, along with Australians generally, have been and, I am sure, will continue to be generous in their financial support. I know from calls to my office that people have been looking at ways and means by which they can be of assistance, and it is a great tribute to Australia and Australians that in a crisis of this sort people have so willingly pulled together. I also commend my colleagues, who have given leadership, and also the parliament for its fulsome engagement in this motion. It says a great deal about the nature of our democracy that on an occasion like this we can put aside our more combative approaches and speak with one voice and in union. ENDS PRIORITY MUST BE GIVEN TO MISSING F3/M2 LINK Local State MP’s and local government representatives met recently with me to discuss collective action on the vexed question of traffic congestion, particularly on Pennant Hills Road. Ku-ring-gai MP Barry O’Farrell, Greg Smith Member for Epping, Ray Williams MP Member for Hawkesbury, Judy Hopwood Member for Hornsby joined with Mr Ruddock and local Mayors, Cr Larry Bolitho (Hills Shire Council) and Nick Berman (Hornsby Shire Council) to discuss an approach to Infrastructure Australia. Consideration of projects put to it by State Government and other interested parties is presently being undertaken by Infrastructure Australia, with a list of priority projects expected to be announced within weeks. The group (together with Chris Hartcher Member for Terrigal, Michael Richardson Member for Castle Hill and Federal MP Alex Hawke who were unable to be at the meeting), is of the collective view that priority must be given to addressing the problem of the missing M2/F3 link. An alternative M2/F3 link, either by tunnel or genuine western orbital, or both, is what is urgently needed. A solution simply must be found. I have notified Infrastructure Australia of their opinion and hopes to see the local area given the priority it deserves. The slow approach to the 2008-09 Aged Care Approvals Round continues to leave older Australians out in the cold and blocks new employment opportunities in the Aged Care sector. The 2008-09 Aged Care Approvals Round is now months behind schedule and a final decision on the allocation of places is not expected until mid-2009 and this will affect constituents. The queues of older residents awaiting beds and community care packages continue to grow while the Minister persists with her negligent approach to providing care for older Australians and we are talking about the welfare of older people. Had the Federal government announced the 2008-09 Aged Care Approvals Round successful applicants on time, planning for the construction process would now be well on its way. It is time the Government made older Australians a priority, delivered beds and services on time and provided the construction jobs that Australia needs. LOCAL FEDERAL MP APPLAUDS LOCAL RURAL BUSHFIRE BRIDGE IN ASSISTING FIRES AT PEATS RIDGE At a local level I acknowledge the enormous commitment and dedication of Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Rural Fire Service who sent over 130 volunteers at the 200 ha fire at Peat’s Ridge in mid-February. They worked tirelessly over for two days protecting properties and bringing the fire under control, risking their lives to protect others.. Although bushfires are a natural phenomena we all need to be mindful of how bushfires can start and how best to handle these serious occurrences. Without the leadership of Superintendent Baldo and Inspector Daniel Busch and all their team people in fire zones would not feel so safe..CONSUMERS SLUGGED WITH ATM FEES AS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROPS UP THE BIG BANKS CONCERNS ABOUT APPRENTICES AND YOUTH JOB SEEKERS I share the concerns about constituents’ job prospects in the Government’s announcement last night regarding apprentices and youth job seekers. Whilst incentives to help keep apprentices in jobs are welcome, spending $155 million over three years, which is only 0.37 per cent of the $42 billion cash splash, demonstrates how low a priority keeping apprentices in work is for the Rudd Labor Government. Labor has also missed an opportunity to announce specific initiatives to help combat rising levels of youth unemployment. Youth are particularly hard hit in times of economic downturn and it is vital that the Rudd Labor Government puts forward practical ideas to help combat youth unemployment. This would have been an ideal opportunity for the Labor Government to announce changes to their proposed replacement for the Job Network, which is due to be rolled out from the 1st July. The new model needs to offer early intervention for job seekers, to help reduce the duration of unemployment. But Labor is yet to address the concerns of employment service providers and community groups. Under the proposed model 61% of the newly unemployed will receive nothing more than help writing a résumé and an overview of their local labour market in the first three months of their unemployment. THREE SCHOOLS SUCCESSFUL IN NEW ROUND OF FUNDING FOR COMPUTERS I welcome the announcement that three schools in my electorate of Berowra have been successful under Round Two of the National Secondary School Computer Fund that is a key component of the Australian Government’s $2 Billion Digital Education Revolution initiative. The three schools are: All secondary schools both government and non-government with students in Years 9 to have the opportunity to apply to purchase laptops, desktop computers, and other technologies and I urge other schools to apply. The Government is investing $1.9 billion through the Fund, to provide for new or upgraded information and communications technology (ICT) for secondary schools with students in Years 9 to 12. Although three schools have been successful there seems a lot of confusion with promises to every student and then less than 10 percent were allocated; and with the Round 2 promises of computers, there is still further confusion whether it is one computer per student or a ratio of one computer for every two students. The Government is consulting with government and non-government education authorities to determine the direction of future funding rounds. TELSTRA BUSINESS AWARDS FOR 2009 CONSTITUENTS MAY NOMINATE A BUSINESS If constituents know any local business owners in our area that have demonstrated a commitment to their local community, business success or overcome hardships, or simply deserve recognition for a job well done – we welcome you to show your support I encourage you to nominate an eligible company for the 2009 Telstra Business Awards, by visiting www.TelstraBusinessAwards.com or call 1800 262 323 during business hours. The Telstra Business Awards have been recognising the contributions of Australian small businesses since 1992, and with the year ahead posing new challenges and tough economic conditions, it has never been more important to give our local small businesses a helping hand. In 2009, there are five award categories. Businesses will enter one of three qualifying categories, based on the size of their business:
All entrants will also be considered for the following two specialist awards:
Nominations and entries for the Telstra Business Awards are open to all eligible businesses with between 1 and 200 employees and close on 31st March 2009. THE SOCIAL SECURITY AND VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENT AMENDMENT (COMMONWEALTH SENIORS’ HEALTH CARD) BILL 2009 BACKGROUND The Commonwealth Seniors Health Card (CSHC) provides access to discounted pharmaceuticals through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, to the Seniors Concession Allowance, the Telephone Allowance and the Seniors’ bonus. This legislation has implications regarding future eligibility for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. The Government is planning to take the CSHC away from many Australians by introducing legislation that will push people over the income thresholds (currently $50,000 for singles and $80,000 for partnered couples). The Government proposes to introduce an income test that will include income from superannuation and income that is salary sacrificed to superannuation in the income assessment. While the threshold limits will remain the same and the superannuation drawings from a taxed fund will remain untaxed, these drawings will be added to a person’s adjusted taxable income for the purpose of assessing eligibility. This will effectively push many seniors over the income test and strip them of their right to a CSHC. Implications for veterans: For veterans on the age service pension there will be no impact from the proposed changes to the CSHC. On the age service pension they are issued with a Pensioner Concession Card (PCC) which provides access to subsidised pharmaceutical under the PBS. Also, these veterans on the age service pension are also paid Pharmaceutical Allowance ($6 per fortnight - single, $3 per fortnight each - couple), to assist with the cost of pharmaceuticals. For veterans not on income support: Many (most) of these Gold Card holders aged 60 or more will also be on age service pension (number unknown) and will therefore also have a PCC.
Footnote: Part of my e-news reports are taken from information provided by my parliamentary and shadow cabinet/ministry colleagues. Visit Philip Ruddock's website at www.philipruddockmp.com |
| You can contact Philip Ruddock's office at: | ||
| PO Box 743 Pennant Hills NSW 1715 |
Phone: Fax: |
02 9980 1822 02 9980 1833 |
| website: www.philipruddockmp.com © 2008 authorised by P.M. Ruddock MP, Level 3, 20 George Street, Hornsby To unsubscribe from this newsletter click #unsubscribe# |
||