The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Member for Kennedy
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (10:01): It has come to my attention that it is the member for Kennedy's birthday today. I think we should recognise the fact that he has been quite a personality around this place and a friend of many of us. I would like to wish him a happy birthday. Happy birthday, Bob.
The SPEAKER: I thank the member for McMillan. That was a timely intervention. I am glad it is the member for Kennedy's birthday. I am even more pleased that he is here with us so that we can wish him a happy birthday. I thank the member for McMillan for raising it at the first opportunity to maximise the chance of the member for Kennedy being here.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (10:02): I thank the member for McMillan for raising this issue. I want to make sure, consistent with his career as the scrupulously independent member for Kennedy, that both sides of parliament wish him a happy birthday.
The SPEAKER: I would give the call to the member for Kennedy, but he is not at his seat.
COMMITTEES
Petitions Committee
Report
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (10:02): Today I present the 10th report of the Petitions Committee for the 45th parliament.
PETITIONS
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (10:02): I present 20 petitions.
Western Sydney Airport
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: This petition from the Residents Against Western Sydney Airport Association, draws to the attention of the House; the proposed Western Sydney Airport as proposed by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development under the Airports Act 1996 (Airports Act) (and its associated regulations) and the Airports Amendment Bill 2015 and the following concerns;
Proven physical and psychological health risks to the communities surrounding this airports and under its flight paths,
Inequity of the 24 hour airport with no legislated curfew,
Documented risk to childhood education, leaning and deprivation of sleep for those living under and around airports,
Adverse impact on the surrounding environment, flora and fauna and biodiversity,
Risk to the World Heritage status of the Blue Mountains National park,
Risk to Sydney's drinking water from burnt jet fuel emissions and potential fuel dumping,
Potential negative impacts on indigenous heritage,
Excessive loading of road transport routes due to the mass aviation fuel, cargo, servicing, worker and passengers transits to and from the airport,
Misrepresentation on the true number of time jobs.
Unsubstantiated need for a second airport.
We therefore ask the House to: accept this petition to have the proposed Western Sydney Airport permanently quashed. And we request that any new airport be considered in a different location that will not have a negative impact on the health and amenity of the 2 million people identified as living in this Western Sydney area.
from 1283 citizens
Higher Education
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: This petition of students at the Australian National University draws to the attention of the House: 1. The 2016 Budget which cut $152 million of funding from the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program (HEPPP) and; 2. The final report of the Evaluation of the Disability Support Programme, which considers raising the eligibility threshold for the Additional Support for Students with Disability (ASSD) from $500 to $3000. Both programs allow the ANU to fund its 'Access and Inclusion' services, which support students with disabilities including those students from low SES backgrounds. An increase in the eligibility threshold to $3000 will render the vast majority of Access and Inclusion applications for ASSD funding ineligible. Cuts to HEPPP inhibit the capacity of Access & Inclusion to hire a fourth 'Student Access and Success Officer' which provides support to 350 ANU students and who provides support to students from a low SES background including those with a disability.
We therefore ask the House to: Reverse the $152 million funding cut to the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program (HEPPP) and block any attempt to increase the eligibility threshold for the Additional Support for Students with Disability (ASSD) from the current $500 threshold.
from 149 citizens
Catholic Church
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: The royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse released damning statistics on the scale of the crisis within the Catholic Church revealing that at least 4,444 cases of child abuse have occurred, in more than 1,000 catholic institutions, and involving between 17-40% of members of catholic religious orders. The Holy See of the Vatican was contacted to provide information on the cases. The Holy See responded that it was 'neither possible nor appropriate to provide the information requested'. This is a clear obstruction in justice, and potentially complicity in committing criminal offences. The scale of offences is enormous and the damage overwhelming for some victims who have committed suicide and had lives destroyed. The Catholic church is a tax exempt organisation as it meets requirements including existing as an institution to advance or promote religious purposes. When an organisation has up to 40% of some groups of members committing child abuse, and fails to co-operate with legal investigations, it should at the very least not be given any benefits from the Australian government or people. To continue to provide an organisation with tax exempt status is an insult to the survivors of child abuse, and directly supporting an organisation that refuses to acknowledge and comply with Australian laws.
We therefore ask the house to remove the tax exempt status for the Catholic Church in Australia
from 16 citizens
Out of Home Care
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: Many organisations, Government Funded, Non-Government and Church Based have nominated themselves as official spokespersons for and on behalf of those adults who as children were raised in in Out of Home Care. Most these organisations though well intentioned in their early stages, do not have the trust and support of many those deemed by the Australian Senate in 2006 as the "Forgotten Australians". The actions of many of these organisations has been seen as dangerous, controlling, authoritarian and dis-empowering. We are seeking to reverse this intolerable state of affairs by asking the government to conduct a detailed audit of all National and State NGOs who purport to represent us, and in receipt of federal funding, especially those service providers who have been involved with and are Executive and Board members of the Alliance for Forgotten Australians. Furthermore, we respectfully ask the parliament to reverse its decision to only consult with the Alliance of Forgotten Australians, Care Leavers Australasia Network and the International Association of Former Child Migrants and their Families, until this issue has been resolved in a manner that is fair, inclusive and transparent to all signatories of this petition.
Investigate the legitimacy and relevance of the Alliance for Forgotten Australians and its relationship with the vast majority of Adults who as children were raised in Out-of-Home-Care and deemed Forgotten Australians.
from 10 citizens
Tax on sugar-sweetened drinks
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: We are requesting that the House act to introduce a tax on sugar-sweetened drinks, to support a reduction in their consumption across Australia. Obesity is recognised as one of the biggest public health threats facing Australia. Sugar is a major driver of obesity and one of the most common sources is sugar-sweetened drinks. In Australia, our consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks is amongst the highest in the world. A recent Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report suggests that in the Western District of Victoria, an estimated 70.1% of adults are overweight or obese. In 2015 across the Wannon Electorate, a Deakin University study measured that up to 50% of primary school children are overweight or obese. The Grattan Institute report 'A Sugary Drinks Tax – Recovering the Community Costs of Obesity', recommends a tax of 40c per 100g of sugar. It will raise around $500m a year (to offset the rising health costs associated with obesity) and trigger a 15% reduction in sugar-sweetened drinks consumption. A tax on sugar-sweetened drinks is also supported by the Australian Medical Association, Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association, World Health Organisation and is being introduced in countries across the globe, including the UK, US and France.
We ask the House to introduce a tax on sugar sweetened drinks and invest the revenue raised into public health initiatives, to address high levels of overweight and obesity across Australia.
from 245 citizens
Disability terms
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: Disabled! I prefer Para-abled. Para-abled aligns with Paralympic and Paramedic. The companion words Para-abled and Parability are positive words and align with Paralympic and Paramedic which have been accepted worldwide. These positive words should replace the negative words disabled and disability. I am disabled (para-abled) and I have abilities, even though since I was 10 months of age I have been partly paralyzed down my right side, my right hand doesn't work, my collapsed ankle and lower leg fit inside a boot which enables me to walk from my knee, I have a chronic lung disease and 2/5ths of my lung removed. Through my life the stigma of the negative words disabled and disability have meant I have had to work harder to get people to do a mind-shift to my abilities. These replacement words will make it easier for us all. Every individual has ability, only brain dead or dead people have a disability (ie no ability). A lady I once met who had locked-in syndrome was communicating with her eyes and had a wonderful smile. I am sure you would rather be called para-abled than disabled. Many people that I have asked said they would prefer para-abled. Imagine a world where people would look for abilities instead of disabilities. (Para-abled and Parability as companion words were devised by Jan Cocks)
Replace the words 'disabled' and 'disability' with the companion words 'para-abled' and parability' respectively in all documentation and to replace NDIS with NPIA (National Parability Insurance Australia).
from 16 citizens
Cannabis
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: DECRIMINALIZE CANNABIS I have recipes for an edible ointment and oil capsules Good for any skin complaint or to use as a daily tonic. I would like to grow my own plant and make a tonic for myself but I can't as I am a law abiding citizen and to do so would be illegal. At Present I have to take expensive medication for High blood pressure, I have no other option. It's all unnecessary when I can grow and make my own tonic for next to nothing. Cannabis products are not freely available to me. I want Cannabis decriminalized and treated in the same way as alcohol. I can make my own home brew for recreational use so long as I don't drive etc over the legal limit. Cannabis should be legally of the same status as Alcohol. Illegal for those under 18years of age.
We therefore ask the House to act on behalf of the Citizens of Australia to Decriminalize Cannabis
from 63 citizens
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: Petition PN0004 was only partly answered by Mr Dutton so another petition must be lodged with wording the minister cannot avoid answering.
Request: The petitioners request the house ask the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to advise if a parent of an adult child can fill in the adult child's forms for citizenship by descent in 1981. Mr Abbott was 23 when his citizenship by descent forms were filled in, signed and lodged by his mother Fay Abbott. The instructions on the forms and the rules for lodging all state an adult child must fill out their own application, it cannot be done by a parent once the child reaches adulthood. In PN0004 Mr Dutton advises that the forms can be filled in outside the 5 year limit if the minister allows that. PN0004 did not query the time limit for lodging, it asked if Mrs Abbott filling in the forms was within the rules and law at the time. The petitioners have been advised by Immigration and Border protection staff via telephone and social media that an adult must fill in their own form, a parent can only do that until the child reaches adulthood.
from 6 citizens
Islam
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: Islam is a political movement with religious aspects. It is described as such by its own doctrine. To clarify this definition: a political entity (for example, the Australian Government), is one which seeks to impose its laws on a society. These laws are enforced through violence, or threat of violence (by the police or armed forces). This is the definition of the term "Political." Religions have rules which apply only to their followers. These rules are enforced by threats or rewards from a supernatural entity, usually in the afterlife and followers are free to leave. This is the definition of a religious movement. Islam has religious aspects such as the belief in Allah. However, Islam is mostly political. Islam's foundational doctrine contains a legal code called Sharia Law. This legal system mandates violent punishments, some of which are barbaric. Leaving Islam is a capital offence. Importantly, Sharia Law also applies to non-Muslims. Muslims are obliged to carry out violent Islamic legal rulings whenever possible (as with the Salman Rushdie and Charlie Hebdo affairs). Islam encourages Muslims to conquer and hold territory which is also a political action. The Australian Government faces constitutional difficulties protecting its citizens from Islamic political violence due to the classification of Islam as a religion.
Islam currently holds the status of "Religion" under the Australian Standard Classification of Religious Groups (ASCRG). We call on the Australian Bureau of Statistics to undertake a reclassification of 1266.0 to no longer classify Islam as a religion.
from 11206 citizens
Airport scanning
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: While alternative screening is provided for those passengers who are medically or physically unable to undergo a body scan, this alternative screening is not available, as an option, to other passengers. As I am NOT medically or physically unable to undergo a body scan, after agreeing to undergo a body scan at Melbourne International Airport, in July 2016 (so I could board my flight), I felt I was going to collapse. As radio frequency energy can give me a headache, I am aware of my sensitivity to it. For this reason, I do not have a mobile telephone and do not use wireless network devices. In America, as implemented by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), travellers 'get a pat-down if they refuse to be scanned electronically, trigger an alarm at the checkpoint, or are randomly selected to receive one'.
My request is that an alternative to undergoing a full body scan be implemented at all Australian International Airports. This request concerns 'the Federal Government's Strengthening Aviation Security Initiative'. Presently, passengers at Australian International Airports, who are randomly 'selected to be screened by a body scanner and who refuse', are not 'allowed to pass through the screening point for 24 hours'. This means they are unable to board their flight.
from 3 citizens
Parliamentarians' remuneration
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: I request that all politicians pay and benefits are permanently reduced. Whilst Workers of Australia pay is reduced and new policy to pay minimum wage earners regular rate on weekends, Politicians rates are remaining unchanged but remain triple that of the average citizen. The prime minister pockets $539,338 a year plus benefits. Instead of misusing tax and outrageous benefits give it back to the hard working Australians that actually earned it.
I ask that you put all Politicians permanently onto minimum wage. They're public servants and the public should be the ones who decide what pay they should receive put it to a vote of the people. Politicians should be stripped of the right to use private planes and helicopters and pay their own travels, everyone else does why should they be exempt? Any use of tax payer funds and reasons needs to be made public.
from 114 citizens
Centrelink payments
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: I strongly believe there needs to be much more stringent policies in place under the Centrelink out of work laws. Men on the dole need to attend Centrelink in complete suit, tie and polished shoes and women must wear Formal business shirt and either dress pants or appropriate skirt with closed toe shoes. These people without reasonable excuse should be put on a new government program to maintain tax payers houses.
I request anyone on the dole for over 1 year be cut off. And the money that would go to these people go back into the taxpayers pocket. I also request commission homes get discontinued as they only get destroyed at tax payers expense.
from 17 citizens
Mobile phones and road safety
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: The number of deaths and severe injuries in car accidents where drivers are distracted by mobile phones and other mobile devices are increasing every year. In 2014 every Member of Parliament was given an idea from Tony Magrathea to help solve the problem and save lives and nothing was done by the MPs. No MP bothered replying to Mr Magrathea about the idea. All OECD countries were given the idea, all major mobile phone companies were given the idea and nothing was done to save lives.
The petitioners request the House investigate the use of sound detection software in mobile phones and mobile devices that will listen for the distinctive noise of a motor vehicle's engine from inside the vehicle and if detected turn off the mobile device. This will irritate passengers in the vehicle but the saving of lives and stopping the maiming of so many people is worth the inconvenience of someone having to wait until they get to their destination to use their mobile devices. If the use of sound detection software is considered viable, the petitioners ask the House to consider legislation to have that sound detection software installed and activated automatically in every mobile phone and other device in use and for sale in Australia. A simple software upgrade can install this in every mobile phone and device on any specific date.
from 14 citizens
Brisbane Airport
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: Please ensure Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC) maintains pedestrian access and safe bicycle access on Dryandra Rd at Brisbane Airport. Currently people walk to and from the Domestic Terminal to the General Aviation Precinct at Brisbane Airport. It is a 15 minute walk alongside of Dryandra Rd. The Domestic Terminal is also the public transport stop for train and bus services. The BAC plan to build an underpass on Dryandra Rd at Brisbane Airport. This underpass will not include pedestrian and cycle facilities. The BAC have advised that pedestrians will be prohibited from using Dryandra underpass and there will be no bicycle lanes, however bicycles will be permitted to ride on the road. The Brisbane Airport land is leased from the Federal Government. The Airports Act 1996 required Brisbane Airport Corporation to produce The 2014 Brisbane Airport Master Plan which was approved by the responsible minister. The 2014 Masterplan supports the provision for active transport and lists active transport initiatives at Brisbane Airport for the next five years as: 'Expand the active transport network across the airport' and 'Improve footpaths, aiming to improve pedestrian connectivity between key precincts'. People who visit and work at Brisbane Airport should not be disadvantaged by not having the option to walk or safely ride bicycles to their workplaces.
We respectfully ask the House to please take measures to ensure the Brisbane Airport Corporation comply with the Brisbane Airport Masterplan by including safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian access in the Dryandra Rd underpass.
from 89 citizens
Media classification
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: The Australian Classification Board has primarily been an agency of censorship concerning media for most of its existence, when such a role is unnecessary in the information age. Age classification should not be the same process as whether certain content is illegal, which should be clearly legislatively defined separately. In particular, despite the establishment of an R-18+ rating for video games, some of these titles in a growing and valid form of art are barred from sale in Australia for arbitrary and sometimes inconsistent reasons, based on unproven argumentation around the interactive nature of the medium and its effect on people. Adults should be allowed to view and purchase what content they wish to view, except for content that is harmful to other real people (child pornography, etc).
As well, the fee for media classification submissions is known to be a major barrier for smaller media producers releasing content in Australia, and unreasonable for a public service to demand.;
We therefore ask the House to strip the Australian Classification Board of its powers to effectively 'ban' certain media based on content that is not otherwise illegal based on other legislation, and remove the "Refused Classification" rating, as well as establish a Restricted (X18+) rating for video games. We also ask the House to lower or eliminate the classification fee, which should be at least partially paid for by the taxpayer, as a public service.
from 5 citizens
National Broadband Network
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: NATIONAL BROAD BAND PHONE landline. How can copper lines be out of date yet fibre to the Nod is installed so every Telephone exchange has a fibre optic line run to it, and every house hold has the copper line from the telephone exchange to their house or business and now there is no constant landline to be used, if the power goes out you have no emergency landline to use, it must run through the modem or a new phone which also has to run off mains power. How can this be fixed, to return to the old reliable landline phone system which can be used for emergencies at all time. and does not need the mains power to have a phone, or needs to be run through a modem. Would optic fibre cables from the telephone exchange run inside of all homes and businesses, rectify this problem.;
Request to the house for action, is to have optic fibre cables installed from the telephone exchange into the house or premises or business to have a constant phone line.
from 9 citizens
Sexual crimes
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: We urge the House to criminalise 'image-based sexual assault'. Advances in technology have led to the emergence of various forms of online sexual exploitation, primarily against women. These include: the non-consensual sharing of intimate images often referred to as revenge porn; morphed porn, which is the non-consensual doctoring of ordinary images into pornographic material; and parasite porn, which is the non-consensual sharing of ordinary images onto pornographic websites.
Victims of online sexual exploitation can suffer many harms including emotional distress, violation, shame, humiliation, damage to their reputation and employability and disruption to their employment or education. Victims can fear for their safety and have suicidal thoughts and/or attempt suicide. Perpetrators of image-based sexual assault shouldn't be allowed to harm, control or misrepresent victims.
In 2016 the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee reported on 'revenge porn', recommending that the Commonwealth government and the states/territories make the non-consensual sharing of intimate images an offence. The Commonwealth is yet to enact such laws or any laws that criminalise the various forms of online sexual exploitation that exist.
As discussed in the report, there are challenges for law enforcement in this area, including matters of jurisdiction, the potential anonymity of perpetrators and the rapid dissemination of online material. However, the Commonwealth have the tools to fight sexual cybercrime through empowering government agencies such as the OceSC and the AFP, and working with internet and social media providers.;
Victims of online sexual exploitation deserve justice. We therefore urge the House to criminalise 'image-based sexual assault'.
from 31 citizens
Western Australia: GST
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: Today's announcement on the GST carve up is an utterly shambolic recognition of the current economic plight of WA. The WA economy has been in decline for a number of years, and is currently the federations worst performing economy, with the highest unemployment. A fairer share of the GST revenue would enable the state government to invest in infrastructure projects which would help diversify the WA economy and move it away from its current boom / bust cycle.
The parliament need to understand the anger currently being felt in WA. This anger is brewing in many forms including dumping the Liberal government at the next election (as was done at the recent state elections), refusal of local business to pay GST to the ATO, and with some of the more extreme views pushing for a succession of WA from the Federation.
How states such as VIC and NSW can keep almost all of their GST, when their economies are 'booming' in comparisons to WA, is simply immoral, and a slap in the face to the hard working citizens of WA who supported the whole Australian economy with healthy GST contributions while the mining construction cycle was strong.;
Request the house to debate openly and frankly on how WA can be given a fairer share of the GST revenue, including, but not limited to the removal of the exemption of gaming machine or 'pokie' tax from the calculations.
from 30 citizens
Australian Defence Force
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: within NSW and other states it's proposed that the Police forces are armed and trained to deal with terrorist incidents. This is not the role of state Police but the Australian Defense Force (ADF). The mandate of the ADF is the defence of Australia. The ADF is trained and experienced in fighting terrorists. The current NSW Police certification to carry a firearm is to participate in an 8 hour course which may include 10 scenarios. The officer is certified to carry their firearm for another year. Note that officers in the state of NSW are not allowed to use the shooting range outside of this training day to hone their skill. A Police officer of ten years experience has had about 80 hours of training with their firearm. A terrorist recruit who may train up to 12 hours a day for 7 days and will have about 80 hours of training with a firearm, the same amount of hours a Police officer accumulates over 10 years of service. However these training camps are not known to be running weekly, but for months even years. Police are outclassed.;
The responsibility to respond to any terrorist incident in the country of Australia be the Australian Defense force. State Police should be in charge of population dispersal, evacuation and perimeter establishment. The State Police have significant experience dealing in crowd control in an emergency circumstance. State Police have skills that are superior in this area to that of their use of a firearm.
from 77 citizens
Petitions received.
PETITIONS
Responses
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (10:02): I present 28 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented.
NBN Co
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter of 1 December 2016 to Senator the Hon Fiona Nash, Minister for Regional Communications, regarding a petition (EN0001) for the National Broadband Network (the network) rollout to be prioritised across the electorate of Cowan, particularly in the suburb of Greenwood. As the matter raised falls within my portfolio responsibility, your letter has been forwarded to me for a reply.
The Australian Government understands how important it is to make fast broadband available to all Australians as soon as possible. Telecommunications service providers are private companies operating in a competitive market and their operational practices, including extending their broadband networks to take on new customers, are commercial decisions. For these reasons, in the Statement of Expectations issued to NBN Co Limited (nbn) on 24 August 2016, the Government asked it to prioritise areas that are poorly served to the extent that this is commercially and operationally feasible.
The Australian Government has put the network on track to affordably deliver high-speed broadband to all Australian homes and businesses by 2020. By early March 2017, more than 4.3 million homes and businesses could access the network. There were also more than 1.9 million active users. I am confident that nbn will achieve its target of offering services to half of Australian premises by the middle of 2017.
nbn is building and operating the network on a commercial basis at arm's length from Government. While the company recognises that many consumers would like access to its services as soon as possible and tries to prioritise poorly served areas where possible, the network needs to be rolled out efficiently in a staged process that involves careful planning, design, construction, and activation. It is not logistically, or commercially feasible, to prioritise all areas across Australia simultaneously.
On 27 February 2017, nbn completed the phased upgrade to its 'Check your Address' website at www.nbnco.com.au. The website now allows nearly every Australian to find out when they will be able to contact their preferred retail service provider to connect to the network as well as what technology will be deployed.
While the website indicates that nbn expects that Greenwood residents will be able to order a network service in the second half of 2018, the suburb is planned to be serviced by a mixture of fixed line technologies, including fibre to the node (FTTN), fibre to the curb (FTTC) and Hybrid Fibre-Coaxial (HFC) technologies. Accordingly, constituents are encouraged to enter their own addresses to determine which technology will be deployed in their locality.
However, to account for the need for inherent rollout flexibility, nbn will continue to update the website to allow for any necessary changes to rollout timing and technology change. It is not until nbn contractors gets on the ground in a locality, that the company has a clear view of the technology available to individual premises. There are times where a different solution is determined to be better than the planned original.
With respect to the petitioners' concerns about the quality of the existing copper network, maintenance of this network is the responsibility of the asset owner, Telstra. However, once nbn takes ownership of the copper in an area, then nbn will be responsible for its maintenance. nbn recognises its service standards and obligations and is committed to the ongoing maintenance and operating costs of its acquired network. nbn has also been investigating and assessing the options for proactive maintenance programs.
In those localities where FTTN infrastructure is being deployed, nbn replaces the majority of copper running from the exchange to the end users' premises with fibre. The copper that runs from the cabinet to the home is left in place. However, before determining what technology is best suited for an area, nbn undertakes a desktop analysis and planning process, followed by testing in the field to determine if the copper is fit-for-purpose. nbn also has the flexibility to deploy an alternative technology if it is more cost-effective, or replace the copper if needed.
All of the petitioners can be assured that Australia will be a world leader in universal high-speed broadband access by 2020, and it will provide all Australians with a strong competitive advantage in a world of accelerating digital change. Australia's national broadband penetration and access speed is rising rapidly due to nbn's rollout progress. Network ace has doubled in the last 12 months and this access is expected to increase even more in the coming year.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Communications, Mr Fifield
Family Assistance Rates
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter of 23 November 2016 regarding Petition EN0034 - Family Assistance Rates. I appreciate the time the Committee has taken to bring this matter to my attention. I regret the delay in responding.
The Australian Government is strongly committed to supporting families with children by retaining Family Tax Benefit payments. At the same time, the Government has an obligation to the community to ensure that programs are targeted and sustainable into the future.
The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017 (the Bill) strongly supports the policy position that families should be encouraged and enabled to re-enter the workforce as their children begin secondary school and are more independent. In addition to promoting greater self-reliance and the benefits of paid work, the Bill contains the savings required to offset the additional investment in child care.
The Bill will deliver genuine, much-needed reform for a simpler, more affordable, more accessible and more flexible early education and child care system. In supporting almost one million Australian families to balance work and parenting responsibilities, this package of measures is fundamentally fair - it will provide the greatest hours of support in child care to the families who work the longest hours, and the greatest financial support to the families who earn the least. These measures are sensible, practical and they are aimed at ensuring the sustainability of our system and ultimately, they guarantee that payments are targeted to those most in need.
The Government considers that the Bill represents reasonable and necessary changes that will improve incentives for families to participate in employment, while delivering appropriate support when needed, both now and into the future.
Family Tax Benefit consists of two parts - Part A and Part B. Eligibility for both payments is subject to income testing requirements. This year the Government will spend approximately $20 billion on these two payments alone. This represents the second biggest item of expenditure in the social services portfolio and the fourth largest in the Commonwealth budget.
Family Tax Benefit Part A assists low and middle-income families with the costs of raising dependent children. Payment is assessed on the combined income of a family and is paid for each eligible child.
The Government recognises that children cost more as they get older, which is why an increased rate of Family Tax Benefit Part A is paid when a child is aged 13 to 15 years and from age 16 years up to the end of the calendar year in which a child turns 19 years if they continue in full-time secondary study. This increase is intended to help eligible families to meet the costs of teenage children and to support their older teenagers to stay in school.
As part of the Bill, the Government will increase the maximum standard rate by
$521.95 a year (equivalent to $20.02 per fortnight) for each child in a family aged up to 19, from 1 July 2018. Around 1.2 million lower-income families (including income support families) who receive Family Tax Benefit Part A for around 2.2 million children will receive this fortnightly increase. This will help families better manage their day-to-day and
week-to-week budgets by providing them with timely, regularised assistance at the times when they need it the most.
The Government will also provide an additional $19.37 per fortnight for under 18-year-old Youth Allowance recipients who are living at home, bringing the payments to the same standard rate as a Family Tax Benefit Part A child aged between 13 and 19. Aligning these two rates of payment is in itself a much-needed part of the reform process to simplify payment systems and will encourage secondary students to stay in school.
Family Tax Benefit Part B is a per-family payment for single parents and for two-parent families where one parent is on a low income or not in paid employment. The payment is made at a higher rate when a child is under five years of age, in recognition of the indirect costs of having one parent with less capacity to participate in the workforce at this time.
From 1 July 2016, Family Tax Benefit Part B is no longer available for couple families once their youngest child turns 13 years, recognising increased capacity to enter or increase workforce participation as children get older. The Bill seeks to build on this principle and further encourage greater workforce participation. From 1 July 2017, single parent families will only be able to receive Family Tax Benefit Part B until the end of the calendar year when their youngest child turns 16 years old, acknowledging that single parents may require support for longer than couples who can share caring responsibilities.
For any single parents aged at least 60 years of age, grandparent and great-grandparent carers with a youngest child aged 13 to 18 years, Family Tax Benefit Part B will continue to be available as these families are somewhat less likely to be working and are more likely to be retired.
The Government will not proceed with a previous proposal to introduce a reduced standard rate for Family Tax Benefit Part B for single parent families with a youngest child between 13 and 16.
In relation to family payments and child support, Government support for families does not cease if the parents no longer live together. Assistance for families is based on the premise that the support of children is primarily the responsibility of their parents who are expected, within the limits of their capacities and opportunities, to provide for their children. Child support and family assistance work together to make sure the costs of the children are being met by both parents, with the support of the Government where necessary.
Fortnightly Family Tax Benefit payments are automatically adjusted whenever child support payments are received. The maintenance income test for Family Tax Benefit Part A ensures that in years where a parent receives a lower amount of child support, they may be paid more Family Tax Benefit Part A, so they have adequate resources to support their child. Similarly, in years where a parent receives a higher amount of child support, they have their Family Tax Benefit Part A adjusted.
These reforms were presented to, and supported by, the Australian people at the last election and are in the best interests of Australian families and the long-term sustainability of our welfare system.
Thank you again for raising this matter with me. I hope the Committee finds this information of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Social Services, Mr Porter
Veterans' Review Board
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter dated 13 February 2017 about legal representation for applicants to the Veterans' Review Board (VRB).
The VRB is a specialist tribunal set up to determine appeals on veterans' matters. It is not adversarial, rather the VRB is inquisitorial in nature and seeks to come to the correct or preferable decision. As the VRB deals with beneficial legislation, it acts in a way that is beneficial to the applicant where it can do so legally.
A claimant is free to choose who, if anybody, represents them in their claim or appeal. However, lawyers are not permitted to appear at a VRB hearing. Restrictions on legal representatives are contained in section 147 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA). This provision was first introduced in 1929 as a part of the Australian Soldiers Act 1920, after lobbying by ex-service organisations. This restriction also applies to applications to the VRB under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA).
The restrictions on legal representation at the VRB are intended to prevent hearings becoming overly adversarial, technical and resource intensive. While the Repatriation Commission and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission both have the right to be represented at a VRB hearing, by convention they do not attend. This assists in maintaining the non-adversarial, inquisitorial nature of the VRB. These arrangements have the strong support of the veteran community.
While legal practitioners cannot appear in person at a hearing, they can assist a person to prepare written submission for their appeal. Additionally, legal practitioners are able to attend Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) events (such as outreaches or conferences) at the VRB.
I am advised that in 2015-16, approximately 89 per cent of applicants were represented at a VRB hearing by a non-legally qualified volunteer or professional advocate
All VRB members are bound by the VRB's fair hearing obligation. This means they must perform their role in a way that is fair and just' quick, informal and avoids unnecessary technicalities; and ensures respect for the service of veterans and dignity in the conduct of proceedings.
VRB hearings occur before a panel of three members; a Senior Member, a Services Member and one other Member. A veteran would not be required to appear alone before one legally trained member in a substantive review. Senior Members are usually lawyers and they preside at hearings, but all panels will include a Services Members who must have Army, Navy or Air Force background. Services Members are selected on the basis of nominations by key national ex-service organisations. The other Member on the panel can have a varied background and qualifications including mediators, nursing, teaching, social work etc.
The VEA and the MRCA are complex pieces of legislation. The legal training of members is not a disadvantage to veterans. Instead, it ensures an applicant has a fair hearing.
For example, members will often be required to intervene in proceedings in order to explain the relevant legislative provisions to a veteran; ask a veteran questions designed to elicit information that is most relevant to the claim; or adjourn a hearing in circumstances where it would be unfair for the veteran to proceed.
Allowing legal representation at the VRB has the potential to change the nature of the review from the current informal inquisitorial process to the more formal adversarial type hearing more akin to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).
As an intermediate level tribunal it is desirable for the VRB to operate in a less formal manner. For those cases that require legal argument the AAT, as the next level of appeal, provides for representation by legally qualified practitioners.
I understand that following a successful trial in the NSW / ACT Registry in 2015, the VRB is progressively rolling out an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Program across all VRB registries. ADR describes a range of ways in which the VRB can help the parties to resolve their disputes without the need for a full hearing — for example, outreach sessions, conferences and on papers reviews including case appraisals and neutral evaluations.
The VRB's ADR program is designed specifically for this unique jurisdiction, where applicants are most commonly represented by lay, volunteer advocates. The program provides a very flexible alternative to traditional VRB hearings. It can be less stressful for the people involved, giving parties greater control over the outcome of their disputes.
An independent evaluation of the NSW ADR trial confirmed that the introduction of ADR enables a large proportion of VRB cases to be resolved more quickly. It also found that even when ADR does not resolve a case, it can narrow the issues so that the full hearing takes less time.
ADR arrangements have been in operation in the NSW/ACT registry since the 2015 trial and in Victoria and Tasmania since 30 September 2016. It will be available in South Australia from 30 April 2017 and Western Australia from 30 June 2017. ADR will be available in Queensland later in 2017, following implementation of a new case management system.
The introduction of ADR enhances the valued role of the VRB and ensures that it continues to be well placed to meet the needs of the veteran community into the future.
I hope this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Mr Tehan
Age Pension
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter of 13 February 2017 to the Minister for Human Services, the Hon Alan Tudge MP, regarding Petition Number EN0050 in relation to state concessions. Your letter was referred to me as the matter raised falls within my portfolio responsibilities.
The Commonwealth Government appreciates that the rebalancing of the assets test measures has affected a number of pensioners. Therefore, people whose Age Pension and Pensioner Concession Card (PCC) were cancelled on 1 January 2017 because of the rebalancing of the assets test measure have been automatically issued with a Commonwealth Seniors Health Card (CSHC) and a Health Care Card (HCC). These concession cards have been issued without recipients having to meet the usual income test requirements.
The Commonwealth Government offers very similar benefits to CSHC and HCC holders as those offered to PCC holders, including concessional prescription costs (in 2017, $6.30 per prescription) and access to a lower threshold of the Extended Medicare Safety Net (in 2017, $656.30). However, the CSHC and the HCC do not provide access to the range of free and subsidised hearing services that are available to PCC holders through the Department of Health.
While the eligibility criteria for the concession cards are set by the Commonwealth Government, state, territory and local governments and private enterprises also use Commonwealth Government concession cards to provide cardholders with other discounts on things like utilities and council rates. The Commonwealth Government has no jurisdiction over the provision of these concessions. However, state, territory and local governments and private enterprises could choose, if they wish, to make their concessions available to people regardless of the type of concession card they hold.
Thank you again for raising this matter with me.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Social Services, Mr Porter
Student Loans
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your correspondence of 13 February 2017 regarding the petition EN0052 on the VET Student Loans approved course list.
The VET Student Loans program provides financial support to enable eligible students to undertake higher level vocational education and training (VET) qualifications. It replaced Labor's failed VET FEE-HELP scheme and is focused on the needs of students while being fiscally sustainable and attuned to the expectations of taxpayers.
VET Student Loans will provide greater protection for students by ensuring that only high-quality training organisations are accessing taxpayer-funded student loans to deliver training in courses that are aligned with workplace needs. This training must have strong links to industry needs, creating better employment opportunities for students as a result of their training.
In this way, the new program delivers on the Australian Government's commitment to ensure that taxpayers' money is well directed and spent in a way that offers the greatest benefit to the Australian community. Australians rightly expect that taxpayer funding for student loans will go to courses that will help genuine students to get a job and ultimately earn enough money to repay their loan.
The approved courses available under the VET Student Loans program are listed on the VET Student Loans (Courses and Loan Caps) Determination 2016 at www.legislation.gov.au/Series/F2016L02016. Courses are approved if they are current (in other words, not superseded) on at least two state and territory subsidy/skills lists, are science, technology, engineering or mathematics related, or are required under state laws in order for a person to be licensed for a particular occupation. Individual not-for-profit or public providers may also have specific courses included where they have strong evidence of employer support and student employment outcomes.
Arts courses are well represented on the course list. There are 13 arts courses approved for delivery by any approved provider with the course on its scope under VET Student Loans, with 13 additional courses approved for specified not-for-profit or listed providers that have demonstrated strong employment outcomes. VET Student Loans support courses in graphic design and visual arts, acting, dance, screenwriting, live production, professional writing and editing, jewellery and object design, photography and music industry.
The Government has committed to a comprehensive review of the course list, which commenced in February 2017. The review will consider the methodology underpinning eligible courses, and the costs of delivery to inform the loan caps associated with those courses. The review will be undertaken in consultation with stakeholders, including employers, students and training providers, to ensure that taxpayer funding supports students to receive high quality training. From 2018, the approved course list will be reviewed twice a year. More information about the review is available at www.education.gov.auket-student-loansNSLmethodology
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention and I trust this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Education and Training, Mr Birmingham
Tobacco Tax
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your correspondence of 13 February 2017 concerning a petition to lower the tax on cigarettes.
Despite the recent decline in the incidence of smoking, it remains one of the leading preventable causes of death and disease in Australia, killing more than 15,000 Australians each year. The social costs of smoking (including the health costs) are estimated at $31.5 billion each year. Annually, over 750,000 hospital bed days are attributable to tobacco related diseases.
In 2014, a report of the United States Surgeon General stated that (The Health Consequences of Smoking - 50 Years of Progress) that increasing the cost of cigarettes 'is one of the most powerful interventions we can make to prevent smoking and reduce prevalence'. In line with this consensus, there have been significant efforts by governments in recent years to reduce tobacco consumption through a comprehensive suite of tobacco control measures, including staged increases and a swap to wage indexation of the tobacco excise.
Excise increases announced in the 2016-17 Budget will improve the health of Australians by reducing their exposure to tobacco products and move Australia close to the World Health Organization's recommended level of tobacco excise. The taxation of tobacco products, apart from discouraging smoking, helps to pay for the delivery of health services and other areas of spending that benefit the whole Australian community.
I note that, when the Committee has considered this response, it will be presented in the House and posted on the Committee's website.
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Treasurer, Mr Morrison
Asylum Seekers
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your correspondence of 13 February 2017 concerning Petition Number EN0066, relating to private sponsorship of refugees. I appreciate the time you have taken to bring this matter to my attention.
I note the petition's request that the Australian Government introduce a system allowing citizens to sponsor the resettlement of legitimate refugees in Australia for a period of up to two years.
Australian citizens or permanent residents and eligible New Zealand citizens are able to propose humanitarian entrants under the Special Humanitarian Programme. Proposers help the applicant pay for their travel to Australia and assist with their accommodation and initial orientation in Australia.
In addition, a Community Proposal Pilot has operated for the past three years where proposers, including community groups, provide a financial contribution towards the cost of resettlement and directly support Humanitarian entrants to settle successfully in Australia.
The Prime Minister announced on 20 September 2016 that the Government will create new pathways for refugees to resettle in Australia, through the establishment of 1,000 places under a Community Support Programme (CSP).
Under the CSP, communities and businesses will be able to sponsor applications and support new arrivals. The CSP will be available to all communities in Australia with the ability to provide appropriate settlement support to newly arrived humanitarian entrants.
Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Mr Dutton
Asylum Seekers
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your correspondence of 13 February 2017 concerning Petition Number EN0067, relating to the refugee intake. I appreciate the time you have taken to bring this matter to my attention.
I note the request that Australia increase the intake under the Humanitarian Programme and offer asylum to citizens of the United States of America.
Australia is one of only a small number of countries that operate well-established and successful refugee resettlement programmes.
The Australian Government has committed to increase the size of the Humanitarian Programme from the current level of 13,750 places, to 16,250 places in 2017-18, and 18,750 places in 2018-19 and thereafter. The 2018-19 Programme will represent Australia's largest offshore humanitarian intake in more than 30 years.
Each year, many more people apply for entry under the Humanitarian Programme than there are places available. The high demand for Humanitarian Programme places means that priority is given to people who have fled their country of origin and been formally referred for resettlement by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and to people in refugee-like situations outside their home country who are proposed by close family members in Australia.
Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Mr Dutton
Women Only Beach
Dear Mr Vasta
I refer to your letter dated 13 February 2017 concerning the petition to create a women-only beach in Perth, Australia.
The Commonwealth Government does not regulate beaches. This is the responsibility of local governments.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Women, Senator Cash
Racial Discrimination Act 1975
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter of 13 February 2017 regarding petition number EN0076 calling for the repeal of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.
Australia is a proud multicultural society. The Turnbull Government is committed to ensuring that freedom of speech, freedom of religion and other traditional rights and liberties are protected and promoted. This includes protecting the rights of all Australians to express their views, including people with controversial views, provided they remain within the framework of Australian law.
On 31 March 2017, the Parliament passed the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, which makes the most significant reforms to the Australian Human Rights Commission (the Commission) in almost twenty years.
These reforms will improve the complaints handling processes of the Commission and ensure that the recent cases of the students at QUT, and the complaint against the late great cartoonist Bill Leak do not happen again. The Australian Government acted swiftly to respond to community concern about the abuse and the misuse of the Commission's processes, highlighted in the recent Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (PJCHR) Inquiry into Freedom of Speech.
The Commission will now have the powers it needs to terminate unmeritorious complaints as soon as possible. It will also be required to act fairly and expeditiously in dealing with complaints, and to notify respondents about a complaint.
These reforms will restore public confidence in the Commission's processes, and improve its efficiency and governance arrangements.
While the Australian Government is disappointed that the Senate voted against strengthening section 18C, the procedural changes agreed to by the Parliament will ensure that the Commission will never again be able to be used to prosecute ordinary Australians who merely want to express their right to free speech.
Thank you again for writing on this matter.
Yours faithfully
from the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis
Standing Orders
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter dated 13 February 2017. The petition that is the subject of your letter raises two issues: the celebration of the Queen's birthday as a public holiday and references to God and prayers in the House of Representatives.
I understand that the celebration of the Queen's birthday as a public holiday is a matter for declaration by State and Territory governments and so I will not comment on that aspect.
With respect to the House of Representatives, as you are aware, the Constitution (s.50) enables the House and Senate to make their own rules for the conduct of business and proceedings. In 1901 the House of Representatives agreed to a motion that the House's procedural rules, the Standing Orders, provide for the Speaker to make a prayer when taking the chair.
This tradition has continued and the Standing Orders—chosen by the House—provide that at the beginning of each sitting, as Speaker, I will make an acknowledgment of country and read a prayer. As you know, this occurs at the beginning of each sitting day and a number of Members attend the House for this event. Throughout each day Members, if they wish, are free to refer to God or to saints in debate in the House. If the House wishes to amend the Standing Orders that is a matter for the House to decide, it is not a decision for me as Speaker.
I hope this information assists the Petitions Committee in its work with the petitioner.
Yours sincerely
from the Speaker, Mr Smith
Humanitarian Visas
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your correspondence of 13 February 2017 concerning Petition Number EN0082, relating to in-country humanitarian visas. I appreciate the time you have taken to bring this matter to my attention.
I note the petition's request that Australia prioritise in-country Humanitarian visa applications on a case by case basis from people, including Central Americans, rather than prioritising certain countries or regions.
The Australian Government considers a range of factors when planning the Humanitarian Programme, consulting with a range of stakeholders, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), to ensure that available places are targeted to those most in need of resettlement.
While planning levels are decided on the basis of regions and caseloads, anyone can apply for a Humanitarian visa. A small number of in-country applications are granted each year under the Humanitarian Programme, for people subject to persecution. People granted under this category are generally brought to the attention of the Australian Government by the UNHCR.
In September 2016, the Prime Minister committed Australia to participate in a United States-led Protection Transfer Arrangement (PTA) between Costa Rica, the International Organization for Migration and UNHCR.
Australia will resettle small numbers of Central Americans within the existing Humanitarian Programme, under the PTA. This demonstrates Australia's commitment to global responsibility sharing in response to international protection needs.
Thank you for raising this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Mr Dutton
Aged Care
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your correspondence of 13 February 2017 regarding petition number EN0083, presented on 13 February 2017, regarding air-conditioning for elderly people.
Currently, the Commonwealth offers a range of home support and care services under its Commonwealth Home Support and Home Care Packages Programs.
Older people requiring home support or care services are encouraged to contact My Aged Care where an assessment of their needs can be arranged. Services provided may include home modifications, home maintenance and some aids and equipment, but are only provided based on a person's assessed needs.
My Aged Care can be contacted by visiting www.mvaqedcare.gov.au or by phoning 1800 200 422.
Thank you for raising this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Aged Care, Mr Wyatt
Asylum Seekers
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your correspondence of 13 February 2017 concerning Petition Number EN0085, relating to asylum seekers. I appreciate the time you have taken to bring this matter to my attention.
I note the petition's request that Australia establish a city state in central Australia for global citizens, without requirements for visas or identification.
Australia has a universal visa system. This means that all people travelling to Australia (except Australian citizens) require a valid visa or an authority to enter.
All people who wish to migrate to Australia must apply and be assessed under the Migration Regulations 1994, where a person must meet all visa criteria, including the public interest criteria on health, character and security. These checks are conducted before individuals are granted a visa to enter Australia.
Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Mr Dutton
Health Insurance Act 1973
Dear Mr Vasta
I refer to your letter of 13 February 2017 to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the Hon Peter Dutton MP, regarding petition number EN0087. This letter has been referred to me as the Minister responsible for s19AB of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (HIA).
The Australian Government considers that the ten year moratorium requirement under s19AB of the HIA continues to be an effective mechanism to distribute Australia's medical workforce. To ensure it remains effective, the Government reviews the process for identifying where doctors can serve their moratorium. These areas are classified as districts of workforce shortage (DWS). During 2016 changes were made to ensure DWS calculations use the most recently available population and workforce data, and a classification system that categorises metropolitan, regional, rural and remote areas according to both geographical remoteness and town size. This ensures doctors are directed to work in areas of the greatest unmet need.
Overseas trained doctors, and those Australian doctors who are required to complete return of service obligations under the Bonded Medical Places Scheme (BMPS), are able to benefit from the scaling initiatives that reduce the time medical practitioners are required to practise within a DWS.
The Australian Government recognises that there are differences between the duration of the return of service obligations placed on medical practitioners under the BMPS and the ten year moratorium requirement. The BMPS and the ten year moratorium have different objectives and target groups and cannot be realistically compared.
My Department constantly reviews the quality and distribution of the medical workforce. Thank you for providing the opportunity to respond.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Health, Mr Hunt
Offshore Wagering
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter of 13 February 2017 advising that the Standing Committee on Petitions has received a petition (petition EN0088) requesting Commonwealth Government action on recommendation 15 of the Review of Illegal Offshore Wagering (the Review) prior to the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016 passing.
The Government is committed to providing a safer online wagering environment for Australians. As you are aware, on 28 April 2016, the Government released its response to the Review, supporting 18 of its 19 recommendations.
The Government is working to protect Australian consumers through the implementation of a national consumer protection framework for online wagering, alongside stronger legislative, enforcement and disruption measures.
With regard to the petition, the Review noted that concerns were raised in relation to onshore operators reducing consumers' bets or, in some instances, stopping them from holding betting accounts. On this basis, the Review recommended (recommendation 15):
"Further research should be undertaken on the impact of betting restrictions on illegal offshore wagering and the identification of op tions to improve the situation. "
In response, the Government agreed to examine the existing literature base, commission further research and undertake consultation on this matter.
In line with its response to the Review, the Government has commissioned the Australian Gambling Research Centre to investigate the extent of betting restrictions and the impact of these restrictions in driving Australians to use illegal offshore wagering operators.
The study will involve:
examining existing literature on betting limits and restrictions;
undertaking limited consultation to explore options to address the impact of betting restrictions imposed by Australian licensed bookmakers; and
undertaking an environmental scan to clarify what circumstances Australian gamblers may have their wagering activities restricted.
The project is expected to be finalised by 30 June 2017 and the findings will inform the Government's policy in this area.
Thank you again for bringing this petition to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Human Services, Mr Tudge
National Anthem
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter dated 20 March 2017 regarding petition EN0094, which requests that the Australian Government change the Australian National Anthem to the 2003 song 'Hey Ya' by Outkast.
The words and tune of the Australian National Anthem were adopted only after exhaustive surveys of national opinion, starting in the 1970s, and were proclaimed by the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia on 19 April 1984.
The Australian National Anthem is widely accepted and popularly supported by a majority of Australians. The Australian Government has no plans to change the Anthem.
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention. I appreciate the important work of the Standing Committee on Petitions in putting community concerns before the Parliament.
Yours sincerely
from the Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull
Asylum Seekers
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your correspondence of 1 March 2017 enclosing Petition EN0101, concerning the Australian Government's regional processing and settlement arrangements.
As a party to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (the Refugees Convention), Australia takes its international obligations seriously. Australia is committed to providing protection to refugees consistent with the obligations set out in the Refugees Convention and other relevant international treaties to which Australia is a party.
With the establishment of Operation Sovereign Borders on 18 September 2013, the Government has focused on disrupting and deterring people smugglers, detecting and intercepting illegal maritime arrivals (IMAs), and supporting regional processing and resettlement of refugees, as well as returns of those transferees not found to be owed protection. Anyone who comes to Australia illegally by boat will be subject to regional processing arrangements and will not be eligible for permanent residency in Australia.
Nauru and Papua New Guinea (PNG) are both signatories to the Refugees Convention.
On 17 August 2016, the Governments of PNG and Australia announced that the Manus Regional Processing Centre (RPC) will close. The Nauru and Manus RPCs operate as open centres. RPC residents are able to move freely into and out of the centres through approved means. Transport services are provided to assist in accessing community facilities.
The Governments of Nauru and PNG continue to progress refugee status determinations for people transferred to those countries under the regional processing arrangements. People found to be refugees in Nauru can settle there temporarily or resettle permanently in Cambodia. People found to be refugees in PNG can settle there permanently.
Australia assists Nauru, PNG and Cambodia to provide refugees with settlement support services to assist with integration. Services are delivered through a needs-based case management model and may include: cultural and language orientation; employment, education and health linking; income support; and accommodation assistance. Services focus on building independence and self-sufficiency.
In addition to these existing arrangements, the United States (US) has agreed to consider resettlement of those refugees in Nauru and PNG endorsed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for referral to the US Refugee Admissions Program. US authorities will apply their own rigorous assessment and vetting processes to determine which refugees are eligible for resettlement in the US. Resettlement in the US will not be available to any future IMAs in Australia. Further information about this arrangement is available at: http://www.minister.border.gov.au/peterdutton/Pages/Refugee-resettlement-from-Regional-Process-Centres.aspx.
The orderly resettlement of refugees from regional processing countries will take time and will not be rushed.
Transferees found not to be refugees are expected to return home. For people choosing to return home voluntarily, assistance is available to help them to re-establish their lives in their home countries.
The application of regional processing arrangements has meant that, in some cases, family members arriving at different times or who are not defined as immediate family members may be subject to different arrangements and situated in different locations. The Australian Government is committed to regional processing and regional resettlement and will not facilitate reunion of family members in Australia. It remains open to any regional processing country to permit reunion of family members. This is a matter for the regional processing country to decide and will not be determined by Australia.
The excision of specified places from the migration zone is a key element of the Government's border protection policies and was introduced in conjunction with regional processing arrangements. It is intended to remove incentives for people to risk their lives by trying to reach the Australian mainland through dangerous maritime journeys.
The Government views immigration detention in Australia as an essential component of strong border control. Immigration detention supports Australia's well-managed migration system and is used to identify individuals and manage potential risks to the Australian community, including national security, health and character risks.
Immigration detention is subject to both administrative and judicial review, and to full parliamentary scrutiny for accountability. The length and the conditions of detention are subject to regular review by senior Department of Immigration and Border Protection officers and the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
The Government has reduced the detention population in Australia by approximately 90 per cent by placing eligible IMAs in the community on bridging visas or in community detention (that is, requiring IMAs to reside at a specified address and be subject to certain reporting conditions) while they await the resolution of their status. Those who are granted bridging visas will, in most cases, have permission to work.
Resolving the immigration status of the IMA legacy caseload of almost 30,000 people in Australia who arrived under the former government is expected to take several years. People who arrived illegally before 1 January 2014 can only apply for a Temporary Protection visa or a Safe Haven Enterprise visa. This upholds the Government's commitment to process claims for Australia's protection for people who have arrived illegally, while at the same time guaranteeing that people smugglers do not have a 'permanent protection visa product' to sell.
It is important to note that an assessment of whether an asylum seeker engages Australia's protection obligations is not based on broad assumptions about the safety of particular countries. Each case is assessed on the merits of its individual circumstances and in light of the different requirements of the Refugees Convention and other international human rights treaties to which Australia is a party.
The Migration Act 1958 requires applicants to establish a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, in all areas of their home country. People who are found to be refugees must also satisfy health, character and security checks before they can be granted a visa.
People who are found not to be refugees in Australia have been appropriately assessed to determine whether they engage Australia's protection obligations. Where an asylum seeker is found not to engage Australia's protection obligations and has exhausted all administrative and judicial avenues for appeal, they have no lawful basis for remaining in Australia and are therefore expected to depart. Those who do not depart voluntarily will be subject to removal from Australia.
Removals occur only after all processing has been completed and do not occur where this would place Australia in breach of its international obligations relating to the return of non-citizens.
Australia works closely with the international community and is an active partner in internationally coordinated resettlement efforts to respond to refugee situations. Fewer than 30 countries worldwide offer resettlement places each year. Australia consistently ranks among the top three countries which resettle refugees referred by the UNHCR, along with the US and Canada.
The Government has committed to increasing the size of the Humanitarian Programme from the current level of 13,750 places up to 16,250 in 2017-18 and to 18,750 in 2018-19. On 20 September 2016, the Prime Minister announced that the Humanitarian Programme would be maintained at the increased level of 18,750 places from 2018-19 onwards. The 2018-19 Programme will represent Australia's largest offshore humanitarian intake in more than 30 years.
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Mr Dutton
United States-Australia Alliance Relationship
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter dated 20 March 2017 regarding a petition submitted to the Standing Committee on Petitions on cooperation with the United States (EN0117). The Prime Minister has asked me to respond on his behalf.
The Australian Government is committed to maintaining, and building on, our strong relationship with the United States. The deep and abiding cooperation between Australia and the United States, centred on common values and closely-aligned strategic interests, is such that the Government does not premise it on conditions.
The Australia-United States relationship is one of enduring importance to both countries ¬through successive administrations and governments. The Government will continue to work closely with the United States Administration to advance Australia's interests, in line with our interests and priorities.
Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, Senator McGrath
Voting Age
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for referring petition number EN0119, relating to lowering the voting age for federal elections, to me as the minister responsible for electoral matters.
The Turnbull Government recognises the importance for Australians to participate in the democratic election of the Parliament of Australia. The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Electoral Act) sets out the requirements for entitlement to enrolment and to vote. The age of entitlement to vote, as set out in the Electoral Act, is 18 years of age.
It is appropriate that 18 years of age remains the legal voting age. This is the age at which a person is considered to be an adult within Australia and is the legal age for a number of purposes, including purchasing alcohol, gambling, becoming a company director and participating in a contract, amongst other purposes.
The Turnbull Government does not have any intention to lower the voting age prescribed in the Electoral Act.
Thank you for providing me with a copy of this petition.
Yours sincerely
from the Special Minister for State, Senator Ryan
President of the United States of America: Official visit
Thank you for your letter dated 20 March 2017 regarding a petition submitted to the Standing Committee on Petitions on an official visit by the United States President (EN0123). The Prime Minister has asked me to respond on his behalf.
The Government welcomes the opportunity to work with the United States Administration, including through official guest of government visits, to advance Australia's interests.
Australia's alliance with the United States is the cornerstone of Australia's national security, and United States engagement in the Asia Pacific remains crucial to the region's stability and prosperity. It is a relationship of enduring importance to both countries, through successive administrations and governments, and one based on many shared values and interests and a history of mutual support and endeavour.
The Government will therefore continue to prioritise strengthening the Australia-US relationship in support of our shared interests in security and prosperity.
Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, Senator McGrath
Immigration
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter dated 20 March 2017 regarding a petition submitted to the Standing Committee on Petitions (EN0124) on United States immigration policies. The Prime Minister has asked me to reply on his behalf.
The Australian Government respects the right of all countries to set their immigration policies and undertake the assessment processes they deem necessary. We recognise that Australia and the United States will not see eye to eye on every issue and are committed to conveying Australia's views, in line with Australia's interests and priorities. But as the Prime Minister has stated, it is not appropriate for the Government to comment publicly on the domestic policies of the United States.
In the Australian context, we are committed to treating all Australian citizens equally regarding the issue and treatment of Australian passports, regardless of whether they are dual citizens.
Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, Senator McGrath
Cowan electorate: National Broadband Network
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter of 1 December 2016 to Senator the Hon Fiona Nash, Minister for Regional Communications, regarding a petition (PN0029) for the National Broadband Network (the network) rollout to be prioritised across the electorate of Cowan, particularly in the suburb of Greenwood. As the matter raised falls within my portfolio responsibility, your letter has been forwarded to me for a reply.
The Australian Government understands how important it is to make fast broadband available to all Australians as soon as possible. Telecommunications service providers are private companies operating in a competitive market and their operational practices, including extending their broadband networks to take on new customers, are commercial decisions. For these reasons, in the Statement of Expectations issued to NBN Co Limited (nbn) on 24 August 2016, the Government asked it to prioritise areas that are poorly served to the extent that this is commercially and operationally feasible.
The Australian Government has put the network on track to affordably deliver high-speed broadband to all Australian homes and businesses by 2020. By early March 2017, more than 4.3 million homes and businesses could access the network. There were also more than 1.9 million active users. I am confident that nbn will achieve its target of offering services to half of Australian premises by the middle of 2017.
nbn is building and operating the network on a commercial basis at arm's length from Government. While the company recognises that many consumers would like access to its services as soon as possible and tries to prioritise poorly served areas where possible, the network needs to be rolled out efficiently in a staged process that involves careful planning, design, construction, and activation. It is not logistically, or commercially feasible, to prioritise all areas across Australia simultaneously.
On 27 February 2017, nbn completed the phased upgrade to its 'Check your Address' website at www.nbnco.com.au. The website now allows nearly every Australian to find out when they will be able to contact their preferred retail service provider to connect to the network as well as what technology will be deployed.
While the website indicates that nbn expects that Greenwood residents will be able to order a network service in the second half of 2018, the suburb is planned to be serviced by a mixture of fixed line technologies, including fibre to the node (FTTN), fibre to the curb (FTTC) and Hybrid Fibre-Coaxial (HFC) technologies. Accordingly, constituents are encouraged to enter their own addresses to determine which technology will be deployed in their locality.
However, to account for the need for inherent rollout flexibility, nbn will continue to update the website to allow for any necessary changes to rollout timing and technology change. It is not until nbn contractors gets on the ground in a locality, that the company has a clear view of the technology available to individual premises. There are times where a different solution is determined to be better than the planned original.
With respect to the petitioners' concerns about the quality of the existing copper network, maintenance of this network is the responsibility of the asset owner, Telstra. However, once
nbn takes ownership of the copper in an area, then nbn will be responsible for its
maintenance. nbn recognises its service standards and obligations and is committed to the ongoing maintenance and operating costs of its acquired network. nbn has also been investigating and assessing the options for proactive maintenance programs.
In those localities where FTTN infrastructure is being deployed, nbn replaces the majority of copper running from the exchange to the end users' premises with fibre. The copper that runs from the cabinet to the home is left in place. However, before determining what technology is best suited for an area, nbn undertakes a desktop analysis and planning process, followed by testing in the field to determine if the copper is fit-for-purpose. nbn also has the flexibility to deploy an alternative technology if it is more cost-effective, or replace the copper if needed.
All of the petitioners can be assured that Australia will be a world leader in universal high-speed broadband access by 2020, and it will provide all Australians with a strong competitive advantage in a world of accelerating digital change. Australia's national broadband penetration and access speed is rising rapidly due to nbn's rollout progress. Network access has doubled in the last 12 months and this access is expected to increase even more in the coming year.
from the Minister for Communications, Senator Fifield
Asylum Seekers
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your correspondence of 13 February 2017 enclosing Petition PN0045, concerning the Australian Government's regional processing and settlement arrangements.
As a party to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its
1967 Protocol (the Refugees Convention), Australia takes its international obligations seriously. Australia is committed to providing protection to refugees consistent with the obligations set out in the Refugees Convention and other relevant international treaties to which Australia is a party.
On 17 August 2016, the Governments of Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Australia announced that the Manus Regional Processing Centre (RPC) will close.
There is no detention on Nauru. The Nauru RPC operates as an open centre and transferees are free to come and go at any time without restriction. Transport is provided to assist transferees to move around Nauru.
The Governments of Nauru and PNG continue to progress refugee status determinations for people transferred to those countries under the regional processing arrangements. People found to be refugees in Nauru can settle there temporarily or resettle permanently in Cambodia. People found to be refugees in PNG can settle there permanently. •
Australia assists Nauru, PNG and Cambodia to provide refugees with settlement support services to assist with integration. Services are delivered through a needs-based case management model and may include: cultural and language orientation; employment, education and health linking; income support; and accommodation assistance. Services focus on building independence and self-sufficiency.
In addition to these existing arrangements, the United States (US) has agreed to consider resettlement of those refugees in Nauru and PNG endorsed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for referral to the US Refugee Admissions Program. US authorities will apply their own rigorous assessment and vetting processes to determine which refugees are eligible for resettlement in the US. Resettlement in the US will not be available to any future illegal maritime arrivals in Australia. Further information about this arrangement is available at:
http://www.minister.border.gov.au/peterdutton/Pages/Refugee-resettlement-from¬Regional-Process-Centres.aspx.
The orderly resettlement of refugees will take time and will not be rushed. Transferees found not to be refugees are expected to return home. For people choosing to return home voluntarily, assistance is available to help them to re-establish their lives in their home countries.
Australia's role at the Manus and Nauru RPCs is to support the Governments of PNG and Nauru through contracting specialist security, welfare and health services.
All transferees at the RPCs receive clinically indicated health care, broadly consistent with Australian public health standards. General practitioner, nursing and mental health care clinics are open at the RPCs seven days a week. There is also after-hours medical staffing to respond to after-hours medical emergencies. These services are supplemented by visiting health practitioners, a tele-health service and medical transfers, when required.
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection takes the issue of illegal or inappropriate behaviour in RPCs very seriously. Victims of any alleged assault, including sexual assault, are provided with appropriate medical treatment and mental health support, and are placed in an appropriate setting within the facility, pending further investigation.
The Australian Government takes its role of supporting the Government of Nauru to protect children from abuse, neglect or exploitation seriously. As part of that support, Australia has signed the Nauru Child Safeguarding Protocol for operation in the RPC. This Protocol aligns with the Department's Child Safeguarding Framework.
The Government of Nauru has enacted the Child Protection and Welfare Act 2016 and the Crimes Act 2016. In June 2015, the Government of Nauru established a dedicated Child Protection Unit, which has lead responsibility for the care and protection of children in Nauru, and has established systems and processes to respond to cases of child abuse and neglect. The Child Protection Unit is supported by two Australian child protection social workers. In addition, a Gender Violence Unit has been established with a 24 hour hotline. The Department actively supports the Nauruan Government to deliver a robust child protection system, including through the delivery of mentoring and training for the Child Protection Unit.
Education of children in Nauru is the responsibility of the Government of Nauru. All school-aged transferee and refugee children are eligible for education within the local Nauruan education system and are supported by contracted service providers and the Government of Nauru to enrol and attend school. The Government of Nauru is developing education pathways for all transferee and refugee children and youths in Nauru, from kindergarten through to tertiary education. The Department supports the Government of Nauru to deliver quality education programmes.
People transferred to a regional processing country will not be resettled in Australia and the Australian Government remains committed to regional processing and resettlement.
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Mr Dutton
Immigration
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your correspondence of 1 March 2017 enclosing Petition PN0046, concerning Ms Sara Karimi Haghighi's request for Ministerial Intervention under Section 417 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). Your correspondence has been referred to me as the Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, as the matter raised falls within my portfolio responsibilities.
Privacy considerations prevent me from discussing Ms Karimi Haghighi's immigration details without her written permission. However, I am able to provide the following general information.
Section 417 of the Act provides the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, or myself as a Minister appointed as a portfolio minister under section 64 of the Australian Constitution, with the power to substitute a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal with a more favourable decision, if we think it is in the public interest to do so. This is a non-compellable power and we are not obliged to consider an intervention request. A decision to intervene is only made in a small number of cases.
Please be assured that the information provided has been forwarded to the relevant area of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection for consideration.
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Mr Hawke
Tasmania: Kentish Health Centre
Dear Chair
I refer to your letter of 13 February 2017 to present petition number 0047 concerning services at Kentish Health Centre, Tasmania.
Primary Health Networks (PHNs) have been established nationally to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of medical services for patients and to improve coordination of care. PHNs work with their communities to identify the health and service needs of their region and how best to improve the effectiveness of services, including mental health and drug treatment services.
PHNs are commissioners of health services for their regions. Commissioning is a fundamental shift in thinking and a more strategic approach to the procurement of health services, which involves data analysis, population planning, stakeholder consultation, design and procuring services, monitoring and evaluation. PHNs are funded to undertake commissioning to ensure that resources are best directed to addressing local primary health needs to advance positive health outcomes for the community.
As commissioners, PHNs have autonomy and flexibility to decide which services or health care interventions should be provided, who should provide them and how they should be paid for. It is integral to the success of the PHN Program that PHNs make these decisions independently of Government. In doing so, PHNs ensure that services are coordinated around community need, integrated with other elements of the health system and are not ad-hoc or provider-centric.
On 20 December 2016, the Tasmania PHN announced the outcomes of its commissioning process for the continuation of rural primary health services in Tasmania. A number of services which had historically been funded through previous arrangements were not successful in the tender process. In some cases these activities had not been previously reviewed or tested for effectiveness or efficiency.
From January 2017, the five successful service providers (Diabetes Tasmania, Royal Flying Doctor Service Tasmania, Rural Health Tasmania, Huon Regional Care and Corumbene Care) have been delivering face-to-face services to people across 21 local government areas and working closely with local GPs and other health professionals to provide coordinated care to people and support a reduction in instances of avoidable hospital admissions. This is not downgrading services or funding, but implementing effective and sustainable primary health care.
In Kentish, Diabetes Tasmania was announced as a successful tenderer. However, the Tasmania PHN acknowledged and identified some service gaps in high needs areas, including Kentish, which were not covered by suitable tenders. Following discussions with newly commissioned service providers and the Kentish community, the Tasmania PHN announced on 11 January 2017, that Rural Health Tasmania would expand on its newly commissioned service delivery arrangements in other regional areas to also include the Kentish community.
The services offered in Kentish by Rural Health Tasmania and Diabetes Tasmania include one-to-one and digital health services for people with chronic conditions who are mainly well, at risk and require early intervention, or have mild symptoms of ill health. Rural Health Tasmania and Diabetes Tasmania also provide face-to-face clinical services for people with moderate or severe symptoms of ill health. In addition, coordinated care services are available for people with targeted chronic conditions of type 2 and non-complex type 1 diabetes, mental illness, cancer, circulatory disease, respiratory disease and musculoskeletal conditions and injury.
Alongside the implementation of new services, the Tasmania PHN offered to support transitional arrangements from 1 January 2017 to 31 March 2017 for patients with critical service requirements. The PHN worked with pre-existing providers, on a case-by-case basis, to identify any critical clinical services or at risk clients that may require continued support while new service providers are being established. I understand that the operator of the Kentish Health Centre, the Tasmanian Health Service, accepted this offer.
The provision of health and transport services in Tasmania is a shared responsibility across governments, the private and non-government sector and individuals. On 11 January 2017, Community Transport Services Tasmania announced its partnership with Tandara Lodge Community Care to sustain the transport needs of eligible clients in the Kentish municipality.
The Tasmania PHN maintains information for tenderers and the broader community about its current and future commissioning processes on its website. This information can be found on the Tasmania PHN website at www.primaryhealthtas.com.au/commissioning. In addition, announcements about the outcomes of completed commissioning processes can be accessed at www.primarvhealthtas.com.au/news/commissioning.
Individual members of the community and interested community organisations are encouraged to continue to engage with the Tasmania PHN and to participate in future planning processes for primary health and other services across the state.
Thank you for writing on this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Health, Mr Hunt
Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme
Bass Strait Passenger Vehicle Equalisation Scheme
Thank you for your letter of 13 February 2017 regarding Petition PN0048 calling for restoration and equalisation of the Marine Highway between Tasmania and mainland Australia.
The Australian Government currently operates two schemes to address the additional costs involved in transporting goods and people across Bass Strait: the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme (TFES), and the Bass Strait Passenger Vehicle Equalisation Scheme (BSPVES). Both schemes involve a substantial commitment of Government funding in recognition of the unique geographical challenges faced by Tasmania. In 2016-17 the estimated budget for the two schemes totals $217.9 million.
The Government has been providing assistance to alleviate the sea freight cost disadvantage incurred when certain categories of eligible non-bulk goods are moved by sea between mainland Australia and Tasmania since 1976 when TFES was introduced. In 2015-16, the Government provided $129.8 million under TFES to offer Tasmanian industries equal opportunities to compete in mainland markets, recognising that, unlike their mainland counterparts, Tasmanian shippers do not have the option of transporting goods by road or rail.
Further, the Government response to the Productivity Commission Inquiry on Tasmanian Shipping and Freight included the decision to extend the TFES to goods going to markets not currently covered by the scheme if the goods are trans-shipped through a port on the mainland. This latest decision provided an additional $202.9 million over four years to 2018-19 for the TFES. It confirms that the Government is firmly committed to addressing the unique challenges faced by Tasmania and strengthening Tasmanian business.
Sea travel to and from Tasmania is equally important and is supported by the BSPVES, which subsidises the cost of the accompanied eligible passenger vehicle and provides support to Tasmanians travelling to the mainland and to southbound travellers, who are largely visitors. In 2015-16, the Government provided approximately $44.1 million under the BSPVES, assisting 160,742 eligible passenger vehicles.
Rebates under the BSPVES are reviewed annually to reflect the change to the Consumer Price Index. The latest annual increase took effect from 1 July 2016.
The aim of the BSPVES, which is to reduce the cost of seagoing travel for eligible passengers, has been in place under successive Governments since 2002.
On 13 March 2015, as part of its Response to the Productivity Commission Inquiry on Tasmanian Shipping and Freight, the Government reconfirmed its commitment to the scheme. In so doing, the Government reiterated that the aim of the Scheme does not extend to equalising the cost of inbound and outbound travel across Bass Strait.
Thank you again for taking the time to write to me on this
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Mr Chester
Trove
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter of 13 February 2017 about Trove — Petition No. PN0049
The Australian Government recognises the important role the National Library of Australia (NLA) plays in maintaining and developing a national collection of library material, including a comprehensive collection of material relating to Australia and the Australian people. To this end, the Government has committed more than $243 million over four years from 2016-17 to the NLA. This includes an additional $16.4 million that was announced on 19 December 2016 as part of the Mid-Year Economic Fiscal Outlook 2016-17, which will be used for the digitisation of material and upgrade of critical infrastructure including Trove.
The Government acknowledges the significance of the NLA, and Trove in particular, to the Australian public and the research sector. This funding will ensure the NLA can continue to provide a modem and innovative research infrastructure platform to provide access to over 471 million Australian cultural heritage items.
Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. I trust this information will be of assistance.
from the Minister for the Arts, Senator Fifield
PETITIONS
Statements
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (10:02): It is great to see so much engagement in the petitions system addressing a large variety of issues and from people from all walks of life. I would also like to take this opportunity to remind all members that, as per standing orders 205 and 205A, members of parliament are not permitted to be a principal petitioner or a signatory to either a paper petition or an e-petition. I would ask you to remind members as well by email or in some other way. We have already had one instance where a member of parliament has signed a petition. That petition will be ruled out of order until his name is expunged from the petition. I will continue to update the House on the work of the Petitions Committee.
BILLS
Public Service Amendment (Supporting a Regional Workforce) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms McGowan.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (10:04): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Colleagues, there are three points I would like to make as I stand here to speak to the Public Service Amendment (Supporting a Regional Workforce) Bill 2017. I would like to explain the gap that this amendment seeks to address, why this amendment is needed, and the benefit of this amendment not only to my community of Indi but also to communities across regional Australia.
The purpose of the bill is to support increased use of telecommuting—working remotely—in the Australian Public Service and thus supporting greater decentralisation of the Australia Public Service workforce into regional areas. The intent of the bill is to remove any discrimination against an otherwise suitable candidate based on their location or capacity to move to a major city. If the candidate is able to telecommute and meet the requirements of the position, with reasonable adjustments by the agency, then they should have the opportunity to do so.
The bill will encourage greater decentralisation of individual employees or positions, which would have a broad benefit to regional areas and allow agencies to attract the best and the brightest. This would result in a regional perspective in the development of policy and the work of the Australian Public Service.
This bill adds telecommuting to the employment principles of the APS and to the rules around the APS merit based promotion and selection process, removing any discrimination in this process on the basis of a candidate's location, if they are able to telecommute and fulfil the required duties.
Under the amendments, agency heads are also responsible for promoting, informing and facilitating the use of telecommuting by employees of the agency. If by telecommuting the employee is unable to carry out the inherent requirements of the work to be done, even if reasonable adjustments for the employee were made, the agency head will also be limited in directing an employee to carry out duties at a particular location. The intent is not to exclude persons located in metropolitan areas from telecommuting, but to make the act explicit in supporting telecommuting from regional areas.
The government have told us that they will be implementing a structured approach to decentralisation as a trigger for growth for regional Australia. Decentralisation is often considered a silver-bullet solution. It can somehow simultaneously relieve the congestion of the big cities while boosting the economic prospects of declining rural and regional centres.
The decentralisation discussion is always full of blue sky thinking but invariably the reality of rigorous process beyond an electoral cycle sees the conversation come to an end. There are as many supporters as not for decentralisation. There is a rich debate in my community about this topic. Some suggest that an active decentralisation policy where the responsibilities of Canberra are moved to the regions has never worked. They cite the seemingly impossible challenge of getting employers to relocate from big cities to regional centres as one of the clear indicators for decentralisation not working.
Colleagues, I am not one of those people. I am on the record as a strong supporter of decentralisation. But, in order for decentralisation to provide value, opportunity and benefit for those in both regional centres and small regional and rural towns, we need to consider decentralisation not simply in terms of bricks and mortar; we need a plan.
While many may criticise the Whitlam approach of the 1970s to decentralisation as being unsuccessful, the driving force of the approach was to identify a sector, in this case manufacturing where location was not a key determinant to success. This worked extraordinarily well in my communities of Albury-Wodonga. It is an approach that is not dissimilar to this government's call for innovation, for agility in the workforce, where location is not important and where the NBN will help us 'keep our big city jobs without the big city'.
It is this approach that provides the greatest chance of success for decentralisation. It is this approach that provides an opportunity for success to extend beyond the regional centres of Armidale, Orange and Wodonga. And it is this approach that provides an opportunity for telecommuting to play an integral role in the move towards a decentralised Public Service.
But, in order to make the most of these opportunities, telecommuting must be considered part of the normal. It must move away from a one-on-one negotiation between a staff member and their manager. Telecommuting must be considered as a legitimate way to meet the requirements of the role from the start.
A 2015 University of Canberra report, 'Smart Work in the ACT and Regions', commissioned by Regional Development Australia ACT and Southern Inland (NSW), found that telework, working from home or smart work is in theory encouraged by the Public Service. Australian Public Service Commissioner John Lloyd said that working from home arrangements were widely used and offered benefits to both employees and employers.
University of Canberra urban planning and design professor Richard Hu said that, while telework was the future for applicable jobs, cultural change was needed first. He notes that 'Canberra is a city more likely to have the practice of telework or smart work, but we do find some management culture, organisational culture in the public sector that presents to be a barrier for the practise of telework'.
Yet in April of this year the Australian Public Service Commission was reported as saying that full-time telework for individual employees has not been considered as an alternative to decentralising the agencies and divisions of the Australian Public Service. This is despite more and more people commuting to work from areas surrounding Canberra, including the South Coast, Yass and Queanbeyan.
The Regions 2030 statement speaks of the government's structured approach to decentralisation. It talks of its decentralisation policy. But we have yet to see this policy. But what we have seen is a call from Minister Nash to all agencies to justify why they need to stay in Canberra. The moving of the APVMA to Armidale, and an inquiry that was established specifically to look at this process, used as a recommendation for all moves the allocation of 10 jobs from the MDBA to Wodonga. And just last week there was the announcement that the newly established Regional Investment Corporation, with an initial workforce of 25, would be located in Orange.
These are not bad decisions but they are missed opportunities. Imagine if, instead of forcing departmental heads to justify why they need to stay in Canberra and not be expelled to the regions—almost as a form of punishment—they were truly able to select from the best and brightest without geographical limitations by encouraging telecommuting. Imagine if, instead of using the inquiry into the relocation of the APVMA to Armidale as a quasi-decentralisation debate, the government used the obvious interest in the process—more than 80 local governments, including those in my own electorate, put up their hand to be considered as a possible location—and this was used as a trigger for a thorough and rigorous inquiry process that addresses decentralisation in a holistic manner. Imagine if it was a process like this that identified Orange as the most suitable location for the Regional Investment Corporation.
I am not alone in wanting a strategic and coordinated approach to decentralisation. My colleague Ms Brodtmann has called on the government to commit to a cost-benefit analysis of its proposed decentralisation strategy and make that outcome available to the public. In a motion, she has called on the government to base decisions regarding decentralisation on open and transparent public consultation and ensure decisions do not come at the expense of effective government.
We know that the best decisions for regional Australia are made by those in regional Australia in partnership with government. So imagine the benefit when those in regions are part of the policy development. Imagine the benefit when it is the same people providing insight, experience and local knowledge when developing implementation programs. We know that there is a multiplier effect. I know from personal experience the cultural change that happens when people in country areas have good jobs, defined career paths, access to professional development and training, and access to greater minds. There is a multiplier effect for their family and their community. The impact of higher wages would have a lasting effect on our communities.
I believe telecommuting is the first step. If it could be adopted across the Public Service, there would be a cultural shift. So I call on the government, my colleagues opposite and all of those who represent regional communities to lead by example and invest in the people of regional communities. We have the innovation. We have the skill. We are getting the NBN. We are getting better mobile phone coverage. So now let's do the next thing and have employment and not let geography be a barrier to being part of the government of this wonderful country.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Ms Sharkie: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak later.
The SPEAKER: The question is that this bill be now read a second time. The time allotted for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (10:15): Pursuant to standing order 113, I fix Monday, 19 June 2017 as the day for presenting the Religious Certification (Non-Discrimination) Bill 2017.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Decentralisation
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (10:15): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Canberra was established to be the Commonwealth seat of Government, administration and policy support;
(b) more than 60 per cent of the Australian Public Service is located outside of Canberra, serving the needs of communities around Australia; and
(c) the proposed relocation of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority from Canberra to Armidale demonstrates the adverse impact of the Government's ad hoc decentralisation decisions on the Canberra community and economy and effective and efficient government; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) commit to a cost-benefit analysis of its proposed decentralisation strategy and make the outcome of that analysis available to the public;
(b) agree that:
(i) decisions regarding decentralisation should only be made subject to an open and transparent public consultation process and take into account the outcome of a cost benefit analysis; and
(ii) any decentralisation of Government agencies is based on a demonstrated net benefit to the nation and does not come at the expense of the Canberra community and economy and effective and efficient government; and
(c) protect the Sir Robert Menzies vision of Canberra as the Commonwealth seat of Government, administration and policy support and a 'worthy capital' that Australians can admire and respect.
In The Government and the People—1939-41, Sir Paul Hasluck exposed the administrative heartache and headache caused by the dispersal of the Commonwealth Public Service, saying it 'wasted time and money, fretted men and hampered understanding, delayed decisions and led to conflict and duplication.' It was for this reason that the founder of the modern Liberal Party, Sir Robert Menzies set about concentrating the Public Service here in Canberra, deeming it better for the 'country as a whole'. That said, Sir Robert Menzies was not an early adopter when it came to the idea of Canberra:
I cannot honestly say that I liked Canberra very much; it was to me a place of exile; but I soon began to realize that the decision had been taken, that Canberra was and would continue to be the capital of the nation, and that it was therefore imperative to make it a worthy capital; something that the Australian people would come to admire and respect; something that would be a focal point for national pride and sentiment. Once I had converted myself to this faith, I became an apostle …
And his 'interest, and effectiveness, in the development of the national capital was later for him a source of special pride.' What a pity the Liberals and Nationals have no sense and understanding of history. What a pity the Liberals and Nationals have no respect for the legacy and vision of Sir Robert Menzies. And what a pity the Liberals and Nationals have no understanding of the Constitution, which says:
The seat of Government of the Commonwealth shall be determined by the Parliament, and shall be within territory … granted to or acquired by the Commonwealth … and shall be in the State of New South Wales and be distant not less than one hundred miles from Sydney.
That is in the Constitution. As I said in my first speech, without Canberra there would be no Australia—without Canberra there would be no Australia. To borrow the words of Sir Henry Parkes, the crimson thread of kinship runs through us all. Those threads are drawn together in this city. They run from every corner of this nation, and the knot that binds them is this House, in our nation's capital.
Already more than 60 per cent of Commonwealth government is conducted outside Canberra, through service delivery agencies such as Centrelink and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Does the Turnbull government want to spit in the eye of the Sir Robert Menzies legacy, ignore the Constitution and move the remaining 40 per cent of public servants out of Canberra? Is that their vision for this nation? We already know the contempt and disdain shown to Canberra by the Liberals and Nationals. We saw it in 1996 under the Howard government, when 15,000 public service jobs were lost in this town—people left this city, shops closed down and Canberra went into an economic slump for five years. Since the Abbott-Turnbull government we have seen 13,000 public service jobs axed, national institutions cut to the core, and more cuts are planned in the budget. We have seen next to zero investment in infrastructure, with Canberra getting an insulting and paltry $3 million of the $75 billion spend in the budget. Sir Robert Menzies would be turning in his grave at the bog ignorance of the Liberals and Nationals, at the blatant misunderstanding about the reason for Canberra as the seat of Commonwealth government and administration. I repeat: as the seat of Commonwealth government administration, as outlined in the Constitution.
This ludicrous, half-baked Turnbull government's decentralisation 'policy on the run' shows that the blatant and shameless pork barrelling that is the proposed 'all cost and no benefit' APVMA relocation is just the thin edge of the wedge. It is a pathetic attempt to cloak the disaster of the proposed APVMA move in a kind of 'plan' or a concept to move that has had a devastating toll on that agency, with a massive brain drain which will take years to recover from. It is a move which has taken an enormous toll on product assessments, which have plummeted. It is that or it is one of the saddest chapters in Australian government history, a sad chapter in our nation's history and yet another sad chapter, through bog ignorance and complete misunderstanding of the Sir Robert Menzies legacy, in the history of the Liberals and Nationals. Shame on them!
Shame on them for turning their backs on the Sir Robert Menzies legacy and vision. Have they no sense of history?
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (10:21): I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (10:21): Around a third of us live in a regional, rural or remote part of Australia. We talk often in this place about the challenges that are faced by these parts of our country, but what we far too often forget is the extent to which our cities rely on them. The bread on the tables of our urban population, the fuel that powers their electricity supply and the raw materials that make up their consumer goods: all of these things come from regional, rural and remote Australia.
My own electorate of Fisher on the Sunshine Coast is certainly a regional area. Local people are rightly proud of their community. There is a reason that the Sunshine Coast is growing at such a significant rate. We are projected to expand by nearly 200,000 people by 2036 and our region's economy is set to double in size by 2033 to more than $33 billion in gross regional product.
The relocation of government departments is not about the Commonwealth government and Canberra bestowing their benevolence on our regions, but, rather, about what our regions can do for the Commonwealth government. It is about what our regions can save taxpayers in costs and efficiency, and what they can do to improve the lives of public servants in health and lifestyle. I quite agree with the member for Canberra about one thing, and that is that the decision as to where government agencies should be located should be based on the net benefit for the Commonwealth of Australia. On that basis, I think the decision is an easy one.
Office accommodation costs on the Sunshine Coast are 41 per cent lower than in Brisbane's CBD, and average total operating costs on the coast are lower than state averages in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. Queensland also has the lowest basic flat payroll tax of any Australian State or territory.
These lower costs come with the same quality facilities and infrastructure. High-speed internet is available in many parts of the Sunshine Coast already, with NBN rollout due to be completed over the coming year. The local council have in place a proposal for a submarine broadband cable which would be the only such infrastructure on the east coast of Australia and north of Sydney.
That connectivity has helped to foster an innovation hub on the coast, which is quickly becoming an Australian leader. The University of the Sunshine Coast Innovation Centre, which I visited just last week with the Minister for Defence Industry, is at its centre and has been the seed of a fast-growing innovation ecosystem. The Sunshine Coast has been awarded Google eTown status, and has been named a Smart2l community for three of the past four years. We also have a highly educated workforce. Our community boasts a dynamic and growing university, the University of the Sunshine Coast, which, with facilities like the Thompson Institute, is conducting world-leading research programs. Of the local workforce, 57.4 per cent hold a tertiary qualification, well above the state average.
In terms of transport we already have access to the National Freight Corridor through the Bruce Highway and the North Coast rail line. The Bruce Highway is currently receiving $1.6 billion in upgrades from the federal government, but even that is cheap in comparison. Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics analysis has found that Melbourne and Sydney recover just 28 and 25 per cent respectively of their public transport costs. That equates to a $4½ billion taxpayer funded subsidy to keep urban commuters moving—very slowly—every year. We also have Australia's fastest growing airport. From 2020, it will have an international standard runway and flights throughout the Asia Pacific will get underway. This is not to mention the $1.8 billion Sunshine Coast University Hospital, which has made our community South-East Queensland's healthcare hub. We need to recruit skilled and motivated people for our public service. Skilled and motivated people today expect the best business facilities, but they demand the best lifestyle for themselves and their families. That is what the Sunshine Coast can deliver. It delivers Australia's fastest growing airport, Queensland's cutting edge healthcare hub and the best in innovation, but it also delivers world-class beaches and magnificent hinterland. It offers 40 per cent commercial accommodation cost savings, a highly educated workforce and low payroll tax, but it also offers spacious housing, negligible travel times to work, healthy living and family-friendly green space in abundance. We should approach this issue with a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. I think the outcome of such an analysis is clear when it comes to the Sunshine Coast: with this one move we can transform lives, we can transform productivity and we can transform our regions. I commend that to the House.
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (10:26): Prior to the 2013 election, the coalition pledged that no more than 12,000 public service jobs would go. We heard very clearly from the member for Sturt:
There is no ambiguity about the coalition's position … if elected, we will reduce the Commonwealth Public Service by 12,000 through natural attrition.
The then Leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Warringah, said:
I really want to stress that we are not talking about forced redundancies. We are talking about not replacing everyone who leaves; that's all.
Since the election of the coalition we have seen anything but. We have seen people forced out of their jobs, agencies sent interstate—in the case of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, to the electorate of the minister responsible for managing that agency, despite the fact that a cost-benefit study showed it was a bad deal for the taxpayer. According to figures from the Community and Public Sector Union, the latest budget sees staffing reductions in 17 of the 25 agencies that they analysed.
It is often said that under Labor there were public service job cuts and that under Labor there were secret plans for public service job cuts. The only way of setting that straight is to clearly go through the data. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table of public service job numbers from 2007 until 31 December 2016.
Leave granted.
The table read as follows—
|
Total APS employees |
30-Jun-07 |
155,482 |
31-Dec-07 |
158,820 |
30-Jun-08 |
160,011 |
31-Dec-08 |
158,393 |
30-Jun-09 |
162,009 |
31-Dec-09 |
161,105 |
30-Jun-10 |
164,596 |
31-Dec-10 |
162,846 |
30-Jun-11 |
166,495 |
31-Dec-11 |
166,607 |
30-Jun-12 |
168,580 |
31-Dec-12 |
164,478 |
30-Jun-13 |
167,257 |
31-Dec-13 |
162,591 |
30-Jun-14 |
159,126 |
31-Dec-14 |
151,355 |
30-Jun-15 |
152,430 |
31-Dec-15 |
151,737 |
30-Jun-16 |
155,771 |
31-Dec-16 |
153,421 |
The figures that have now been incorporated in the Hansard show that from 30 June 2007 through to 30 June 2013 public service job numbers grew steadily, in line with the Australian population. That is as it needs to be, because, as our population grows, the demand for the work that most public servants do—in Centrelink and Medicare—grows along with it. In every year, except for Labor's last year in office, public service job numbers measured on the June survey increased. In that final year, the decrease was a matter of hundreds. But if we compare figures from 30 June 2013 to 31 December 2016—the most recently available figures—public service job numbers are nearly 14,000 down. That is well in excess of what the coalition pledged before coming to office. More than 12,000 public service jobs have been cut—a clear breach of promise.
The public serves Australia. Six out of 10 public servants work outside Canberra. But those who work in Canberra are no less valuable for that. They are citizens of Australia. They work hard to serve both sides of government, and yet they have been abysmally treated by this government.
At one of my regular street stalls in Gungahlin a young couple came up to me. They said that she worked in a federal government department. She had three degrees, had volunteered overseas and had many years of experience in the Public Service, gained by working on short-term contracts. But, due to the Public Service freeze that was in place, they did not feel that they were able to start a family. As the woman of the couple—let us call her Jess—said to me: 'I just do not have the confidence that I can sport a seven-month belly and negotiate an extension of contract.' So they are putting off starting a family until they can find a job that offers more certainty.
The decimation of the Public Service—and that is literally what it has been—has been enormously damaging for the great people of Canberra. The cuts to the Public Service have occurred in almost every area but two: non-ongoing numbers have increased under the Liberals, and the volume of contracts has increased. So uncertain, short-term work has taken the place of sustainable, ongoing public sector work.
The last budget saw severe damage done to Canberra. The cuts to schools were disproportionately high in the ACT. The cuts to universities disproportionately hurt us. The jump in out-of-pocket costs has been the highest in the ACT, and the underfunding of ACT infrastructure has been disastrous for this city.
Mr COULTON (Parkes—Deputy Speaker) (10:31): I am very fond of Canberra. And, if the truth be known, I am quite fond of the member for Canberra and the member for Fenner, but they seriously need to get out more. As to the idea that Canberra is somehow suffering under an incredible scourge from the federal government cutting into the basic economy, they have not told private enterprise that—I do not know how many cranes I counted this morning coming in to Canberra. And I have witnessed the explosion in the population in the 10 years that I have been here.
But this is about decentralisation. The job of the Australian government is to provide value for money for the constituents of Australia. Our job is not to just look after the benefits of people who work in Canberra.
There has been a lot said about the so-called pork-barrelling of the APVMA going to Armadale. I can remember, under a previous government, when I was in opposition, there was the Department of Climate Change, and a beautiful steel and concrete edifice was dug into the ground, disguised with second-hand timber and vines to make it look environmentally friendly, in the middle of Canberra. There was no thought as to why, if climate change is affecting the whole of Australia, that had to be in the middle of Canberra. But there was no talk of pork-barrelling when that went up.
I have just done 3,000 kilometres in the last week, and most of those were on gravel roads. I have been to communities like Tibooburra, where the community committee runs the whole town: they collect the garbage; they fix the water pipes. So I have some idea of communities doing things and of the effects of government decisions on that.
The reasons for the APVMA going to Armadale were: because of the university, because there are the peak bodies for breeds there and because most of the users of ag chemicals are in regional Australia. There was some quite dishonest reporting of it. Indeed, the head of the department has since resigned. There were improper reports in the media about staff working out of McDonald's and nonsense such as that, which were completely fabricated.
We have seen other examples of decentralisation that have benefited the people who it is supposed to serve. The Grains Research and Development Corporation was decentralised across several locations. One of those was in Dubbo in my electorate. That was not because it was pork-barrelling for the member for Parkes but so that the people who need that research, who are collaborating with the government—the researchers, the farmers and others—could get access to highly qualified, professional people.
The Murray-Darling Basin Authority being decentralised across several locations was also of benefit. If we had that back when Senator Wong was the minister, we might not have seen the bulk purchase of water for Collymongle Station which took out three quarters of the jobs. In comparable terms, it would be something like 50,000 jobs out of Canberra. As a comparison, that was taken out of Collarenebri with one stroke of a pen. Ten per cent of the rate base of Bourke was taken out when Senator Wong purchased Toorale Station without any thought. If those decisions were informed and made closer to where the people actually lived, that would be a benefit to not only Australian taxpayers but the people we serve. I have just had the weekend in Broken Hill—a wonderful centre in the western part of my electorate. I spoke to the mayor and the general manager of Broken Hill on Friday. They said, 'We would like to look at what we can do with some of the decentralisation policies that you are looking at.' They are central to Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney. The NBN is being rolled out at the end of this year and next year.
The member for Canberra talked about the Menzies era. In the Menzies era, members from regional Australia would catch the train to Canberra and stay there for six weeks. Letters would come from their electorates. We now have connectivity. The reason that those departments were placed all around Parliament House are not as valid as they were in the original days, because in you can work anywhere Australia.
Dr MIKE KELLY (Eden-Monaro) (10:36): I thank the member for Canberra for bringing forward this motion. It is extremely important to understand that this is an assault on what was created as the 'bush capital'. It seems to be something that the Nationals and the Liberals have forgotten in this process. This whole region is one economic, social, health and education entity that supports the economy of the whole of regional southern New South Wales. The coalition are, effectively, launching an assault on one region in order to pork-barrel for areas that they seem to control. It is not creating new jobs in regional Australia; it is stealing from Peter to pay Paul. What we need to have is a strategy for creating new jobs in rural and regional Australia. It is very fortuitous that I am standing next to the member for Grayndler, who understands that reinforcing rural and regional Australia was about addressing issues such as infrastructure and investing in good-quality, value-adding infrastructure that would grow those economies—things like the Bega bypass that the member assisted me with.
We have to understand that we are robbing this region and destroying the strategic weight that Canberra gives it. That strategic weight is what has enabled us to attract the international airport and the sectors that have come with that. My primary producers are taking advantage of that strategic weight and opening up that international sector. From the cherry growers in Young to oyster growers on the coast, we are seeing a huge opportunity for our primary producers to get their product on plates in Southeast Asia and to really bite into that growing middle class market with good-quality fresh produce. That will be lost to us if we see this destruction of the Canberra economy.
I will also lose the driving holiday-makers that travel all around this region and give such a boost to our tourism industry. It really annoys me when we see people like the Premier New South Wales, Gladys Berejiklian, slagging off Canberra when she completely ignores the fact that the Canberra region supports southern New South Wales not only economically, as I have mentioned, but also through health and education support that it provides to my communities and the many communities in this region. So she should be a bit more appreciative of the impact and the results delivered by Canberra that relieve burdens on her own budget and her own administration.
We already have substantial commuter traffic coming to Canberra from around the region—people from Queanbeyan, of course, Cooma, Bungendore, Yass, Goulburn, Braidwood, Murrumbateman, Gundaroo, Sutton, Collector, Michelago, Thredbo—if you drew a one-hour radius right around this area of Canberra, you would see that a vast number of people who work here and who are supported by the economy come from regional New South Wales. Twenty-seven thousand vehicles a day cross the border just from Queanbeyan alone. This government should be focusing on generating those new economies, as I said, and getting better education, better health and better NBN, improving productivity and resilience for our primary producers and getting their produce into regional markets. And this should be done now, not in 20 years through some of these dubious free-trade arrangements that they have entered into.
We have suffered enough under the coalition through their forced mergers in New South Wales, their mishandling of this greyhounds issue, loss of services—particularly through their attacks on Centrelink, providing regional advisers to my veterans; my electorate offices have effectively become adjuncts to Centrelink, handling hundreds and hundreds of complaints by people who are in great distress over the effects of this federal government's attack on services that are provided to rural and regional Australia. We have seen post offices close. Banks are closing in my region. We are seeing railway stations close. And our community is well and truly fed up with the total neglect it is seeing from coalition governments at the federal and state level. That is why people like Pauline Hanson and Donald Trump get the results they do: because the grievances of the people are not being addressed by governments they once had faith in.
Also banks: we have seen complete dropping of the ball in relation to dealing with banking issues. My farmers come up to me complaining of the way they have been treated by banks and are crying out for a royal commission into the way banks conduct business for our farmers. This government is flying in the face of cost-benefit analysis on why these moves should not actually happen and the Productivity Commission's own analysis that says this is no good, at a time of so-called budget repair, when we are forking out $60 million to try to move these departments. And how many departments do we have, to go around the whole of Australia? This is a joke. It is a joke to pork barrel, and it does not help this country or rural and regional Australia. (Time expired)
Mr DRUM (Murray—Chief Nationals Whip) (10:41): I find it amazing that the Labor Party are just so openly hostile in their opposition to the concept of decentralisation. We have a whole raft of experiences and a whole raft of examples of where decentralisation has in fact worked at both the state and the federal level. It seems to be an opportunity for all of Australia—not just Canberra, not just Sydney, not just Melbourne—to share in the wealth created by the taxpayers. This is an opportunity for everybody to share partially in the wealth generated by the Public Service—well-educated, hardworking, smart people working and living in every area around Australia, not just having them condensed into one or two or three very high-socioeconomic social areas such as CBDs of Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra.
It is amazing when it is put to the Australian people that we are spending $4½ billion to subsidise public transport in Melbourne and Sydney. No-one raises an eyebrow at that—just our everyday subsidisation of the fare box that happens around Australia in our major regional cities and our major metropolitan areas. There is this enormous subsidisation. No-one cares about that, but the second we start talking about putting some real wealth into the regions, everyone starts talking about pork barrelling. This is quite staggering. We have the situation in which, in the ACT, they are calling for a $100 million-odd light rail system that is going to operate in and around Canberra. And that is not going to pay for itself; it will need to be subsidised by taxpayers so that it operates just like every other metropolitan train service or tram service. It has to be subsidised so that it actually works.
But from the Labor Party there seems to be one rule for everybody else and another rule for the regions. So, the cities can take and use whatever they wish but, when it comes to asking for a fair share for the regions or for country Australia, all of a sudden the Labor Party puts up the shutters and calls for the absolute abolition of any of those sorts of funds going out to the regions. It is staggering, decisions being made by bureaucrats and public servants that have a real impact—and not on Canberra, not on Sydney, not on Melbourne, not on the major metropolitan areas. When the decisions of the bureaucrats and the decisions of the departments have a true impact on the regions, it is staggering to think that the Labor Party will oppose the idea that some of those bureaucrats should in fact live in the regions, that they should be able to sample the consequences of their decisions each and every day because they are living through it.
This was one of the great arguments for further decentralisation of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, where the decisions that are being made here in Canberra are impacting on all of the towns, communities and cities along the Murray-Darling Basin. Those decisions are having an impact on everybody's lives every day of the year. Yet we have in this chamber a shadow minister for water who continually wants to push the water away from productive agriculture and towards environmental purposes. That balance has been totally tilted askew and we are going to get to the situation where damage is going to be done. These sorts of decisions are seen to be made on a distant planet, and whatever decisions the bureaucrats in Canberra make on various other regions around Australia seem to not be of any real concern to those people. Through a decentralisation policy, we might find that those people live and breathe the consequences of their decisions—and you can replicate this example across other areas.
But when we think about decentralisation we should not just be thinking about decentralising departments and portfolios that actually pertain to rural and regional Australia. There is no reason that you could not do more along the lines of the Australian Taxation Office, which was decentralised many, many years ago to the Albury-Wodonga region. That is seen to have been very positive and very successful—as with the case of the State Revenue office move to Ballarat and on and on it goes. They are great examples. We should follow this lead. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Cyclone Debbie
Mr HOGAN (Page) (10:46): I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the widespread devastation in Lismore caused by flooding associated with Cyclone Debbie;
(2) acknowledges the hard work of the state emergency services, rural fire services, police, fire brigades and Australian Defence Force and other emergency services in responding to the recent flooding and damage caused by Cyclone Debbie in numerous communities in Northern NSW and Queensland; and
(3) congratulates the Australian Government, in conjunction with the NSW and Queensland governments, on their swift response to this event.
At around 4 am on 31 March sirens wailed across the Lismore CBD. For over 20,000 people this noise signified devastation—for some the loss of livelihood, the loss of a home, the loss of a business. It was the first time since the levee built in 2005 was going to overtop. It was built for a 10.6 metre flood, and it overtopped nearly a metre above this.
A severe weather warning had been in place, with predicted rainfall totals from Cyclone Debbie of over 350 millimetres on an already saturated catchment. Nearly double this fell in parts of the catchment. By 12.45 pm on the Thursday a flood warning had been issued. Communities in north and south Lismore started to enact flood plans, some businesses began sending home people who needed to get home and those who stayed started lifting stock away from the predicted flood height. At 3.40 pm on the Thursday, the SES updated the weather warning, and the river was expected to overtop the levee. Businesses in the CBD and in north and south Lismore began to lift stock and remove valuables. By 5.30 pm the SES issued evacuation orders for the CBD. It was almost two days before people could get back into the flood ravaged areas to assess the damage.
The SES and the RFS had volunteers from all over the country. They were joined by the Volunteer Rescue Association and swift water rescue officers, and members of Fire and Rescue New South Wales and extra ambulance and police officers all arrived. Thousands officially volunteered their time to assist the community. Local organisations like the Red Cross set up and ran centres for people who had been displaced by the floods. The community and charities like the Salvation Army, St Vincent de Paul and many others provided much-needed essentials. Support groups like CentreChurch, UnitingCare, the Anglican Pantry, Five Loaves, Winsome Hotel, Lifeline threw open their doors, despite many of them having been affected themselves. Many individuals who had not been affected began delivering food to those who working to restore normalcy to the community.
Other key organisations included the Lismore City Council staff themselves, who went far beyond the call of duty. A massive 11,000 tonnes of property damaged by the flood was removed by the council, to the extent that the council did not have enough room in the local tip and had to have it moved interstate to get rid of it. There was literally tonnes of rubbish lying around the streets, and the council did an amazing job picking it up as quickly as they could.
Southern Cross University, the local university, opened its doors to those who could not return to their home for a number of days. Lismore Helping Hands set up at the train station in South Lismore. Over 900 individuals were involved in this group, which coordinated volunteers across the region to help with flood-affected businesses and households. It was a wonderful example of a grassroots campaign for people to help other people.
I would also like to thank the Lismore Chamber of Commerce—an industry which became really important in the recovery and which spearheaded Lismore's Restart the Heart campaign. They helped me and others in making sure that a category C disaster was declared to ensure that grants were available not just to households but to businesses. We did this within two weeks, which required a lot of work. I would like to thank Deb Benyahon and Andrew Gordon and the whole team who helped organise that campaign and who also helped me organise community meetings to make sure that everyone was aware of the assistance that was available.
Our community is on its way to healing. There are shops opening and the initial damage is slowly being repaired. We are a resilient community and we will rebuild and recover, but this disaster has been a real blow. Many tears have flowed, and hugs have been commonplace. I would like to thank everyone involved. What we have seen with this great devastation in our community, which, as I said, has been a real blow, is the resilience and indeed the joy of the human spirit reflected most in those people selflessly helping other people, whom they often did not even know. We will come back bigger and better, but this will take time to heal.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Van Manen: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (10:52): I would like to tell the House the story of Jim Ferguson, Claire Browning and Chris Holloway—three SES volunteers based out at Daisy Hill, which is around the corner from my place in Logan City. In the early hours of Saturday, 1 April, at Luscombe, they were in a tinny navigating by an app on their phone through the floodwaters when they came across a family stranded on the roof of their home. There was a mum, two kids, a grandfather and two dogs on the roof. They called triple 0, but nobody was able to reach them, and so instead these three SES volunteers and one other person took it upon themselves to pull this family to safety, literally moments before the house itself was swept away. Without Jim, Claire and Chris, it would not just be the house that was gone; it would be the family that was gone as well. I sat with them and the member for Forde at a volunteers breakfast a couple of Saturdays ago, where we got the opportunity to thank these volunteers and, indeed, all of the volunteers. We saw up close their humility. We saw their efforts to minimise their own contribution and to try and maximise the contribution of others.
That story about the SES volunteers is a really remarkable story, but in another sense it is not entirely a surprising story. It is how we roll in our part of the world. It reflects the professionalism of our first responders, the selflessness of our volunteers and the willingness of local people to look out for each other and to look after each other. I have said this before, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell. You have heard me say how proud I am to represent the community that I grew up in, live in and love, but I have never been prouder than in our response to the flooding of the Albert and Logan rivers.
What we saw early in April was easily the worst devastation I have seen in our community in my lifetime. A life was lost, an Eagleby man, roads were cut, homes were inundated and some were swept away. Power was lost, lifelong possessions were destroyed and mud and the smell of that mud hung around long after the water subsided.
In response, our community was flooded with kindness and our community was flooded with selflessness. I saw it in the offers of help that came flooding in even before the rain had stopped. I saw it early on the Sunday morning of 2 April as I was inspecting some of the damage just over the border into Forde. I looked up, and from the hills, people who had seen my car were coming down the hill to see how they could offer to help. I saw it in the briefing at the SES headquarters at Daisy Hill, where the firies from all around were working out how to coordinate their efforts with the SES.
I saw it in North Maclean, with Linus Power and Annastacia Palaszczuk, our premier. I saw it in the Scouts who were cleaning up the house that we visited. I saw it in Alf, also at North Maclean, who went out of his way to thank the firies who had bailed him out at his place. I saw it on Arthur Road, in the place that Linus Power and I hosed out and helped to clean up—Lynda and John's lifetime of possessions. We tried to make some sense of order as we carried their possessions out of the house and onto the footpath for the council to pick up. Then, not long after, we were joined by the Ahmadiyya community. And I saw the Fijian seniors community—Surendra Prasad and his friends—make a donation to Lynda and John to help them get back on their feet.
I saw it on Bayes Road at Logan Village, with Bunnings, Youth Off The Streets and young kids delivering sandwiches and Easter eggs—all volunteers, hosing out houses and feeding other volunteers. I saw busloads of volunteers, with their boots and their brooms, leaving Logan Metro each morning, including a big contingent from Access Community Services.
I saw it when the Broncos visited Logan Brothers, supporting us just as we support them. I wanted to note while the member for Grayndler is here that the Broncos have not lost since they visited Logan City more than six weeks ago! I saw it when Bill Shorten visited. We got a briefing from councillors, who had been working around the clock—the emergency response team and the leadership of the mayor. I saw it at Logan Tree Farm and with the Logan House Fire Support Network—Ailsa's business there had gone under. I saw it at Beenleigh Multisports, I saw it at the Alan Wilkie Bridge and I saw it at the town hall meeting that Bill Shorten and I had at Eagleby, listening to people's concerns. I saw it in the leadership of our state members—from Linus Power, as I mentioned, but also from Cameron Dick and Shannon Fentiman. Shannon's own house went under and she still spent her time helping others.
This motion is a way to say thanks to everyone who pitched in, and an opportunity to say again that I am proud of our community and proud of our response to the floods.
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Deputy Nationals Whip) (10:57): I rise today to share the sentiments of the member for Page. The fact that the distance between the impacted electorates spans some 1,400 kilometres speaks to the extraordinary breadth of Cyclone Debbie.
I watched closely what happened in Lismore and share my condolences for the lives lost when the river peaked. I have also been looking at Lismore and the failed levy bank as media pressure rises for a similar construction in my own electorate of Rockhampton. In the weeks following the cyclone I was able to tour through the electorate to see the devastation firsthand. Hearing the stories of people, there were a lot of 'what ifs' that made me truly appreciate how lucky we were not to lose more lives.
There was one family in particular, canefarmers in the Pioneer Valley. Water had never risen into their yard before. The house was destroyed, the young family placed on kitchen benches and the kitchen table. They phoned triple 0 numerous times. Eventually, at 3 am came the sound of the rescue helicopter to save them. But it did not end there. The parents were harnessed out and the children were placed in body bags because they were so young. That image is always in their mother's mind, seeing her children rescued in that way.
It is thanks to the efforts of the community members, the SES, Ergon and government bodies, including local councils, that the 'what ifs' did not become 'if onlys'. The stories of bravery and resilience across Capricornia will become legend. In Eton, the volunteer fire service became a makeshift emergency evacuation centre. The men and women who volunteer their time got in and assisted the SES on the ground.
John Muscat, a local canegrower and volunteer, got out in his tractor to assist isolated residents. Mr Muscat even assisted a woman in labour, to get her to safety. I do not think they will be calling the healthy newborn 'Debbie', but they will be forever grateful to John for his selflessness.
The blow of Cyclone Debbie and the incredible rain event that followed could not be prevented, but the swift recovery ensured that the impact on lives and livelihoods was minimised. I would particularly like to commend the Ergon and SES crews. I do not think many places in the world could have restored electricity to such a large area in such a short time frame. The SES crews were working in extremely challenging conditions without access to GPS and without local knowledge. I fervently believe this speaks to the need to have state agencies working closely with locals. I also applaud the efforts of every level of government and the swift action taken by the Prime Minister to deploy the Australian Defence Force. These forces proved essential during Cyclone Debbie, and the speed of deployment to this event made recovery that much easier for people on the ground. We have had some practice, and we are getting very good at responding to extreme weather events.
The people of Central Queensland are resilient, and at times like these the best of us shines through. However, I do think it is important to highlight the comparisons between New South Wales and Queensland state governments during this event. I also wish to commend New South Wales on their professional handling of the extreme weather events. They showed utter professionalism between local, state and federal agencies to get in and get the clean-up done. Not for the first time, the Queensland state Labor government plays games with people's lives. After Cyclone Marcia, the state government created delays by not submitting the appropriate documentation to release cyclone assistance. At the time, they had not been in power for long, so this behaviour was understandable. However, more than two years on, they used the same tactic. They ran to the media to criticise the federal government for not releasing the funding, meanwhile failing to submit the appropriate assessments. In a much shorter time, New South Wales got in, made the assessments and activated the assistance without much fanfare. The Premier of Queensland had to be constantly asked to send in the assessments. A natural disaster is not the time to politicise; it is the time for everyone to band together and get on with the job of helping people get back on their feet. Fortunately, this has now been actioned, but these delays impacted everyday people wanting to get on with their lives, and it is simply not acceptable.
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (11:02): I rise to speak on the motion moved by the member for Page, and from the outset can I acknowledge that he, like all of us on the New South Wales North Coast, have truly felt the devastation and heartbreaking loss felt by the people in our region. It has been a very difficult time. Make no mistake: the flooding associated with Cyclone Debbie has been devastating. With so many homes wrecked and businesses destroyed, it is a very long road to rebuild and repair. And, of course, the tragedy of lives lost due to the flooding is extremely sad. I would like to express my condolences to all those families and communities that have lost loved ones in the floods.
I want to particularly mention the very tragic loss of mother Stephanie King and her children Jacob, aged 7, and Ella-Jane, aged 11, who perished in their vehicle in the Tweed River. Tweed police have said that Stephanie King was a hero who died trying to save her children. Stephanie King's eight-year-old daughter, Chloe-May, miraculously escaped the car to raise the alarm with local residents.
The massive weather event caused by Cyclone Debbie spread south from Queensland and caused the largest flood we have ever seen. The swiftness and the incredible speed and velocity of damage with which the rain and flooding came was in fact shocking and overwhelming. The record rainfall resulted in thousands of residents evacuated from flood affected areas.
I would like to strongly commend and thank our outstanding police and emergency services workers and our SES volunteers and council staff for their work and commitment throughout this event. I would also like to commend our community for coming together and assisting one another. Whilst locals welcomed the early decision to appoint a disaster recovery coordinator, we have rightly been critical of both the New South Wales state government and the federal government for their lack of substantial funding and commitment to repair and rebuild the North Coast. In fact, our community had to protest and campaign locally to force the state government to commit to category C funding, particularly for business assistance, and many smaller villages are still waiting for category C assistance. Some areas, such as the Byron shire, are still waiting for disaster relief payments. This is truly disgraceful.
I also want to thank both the federal opposition leader, Bill Shorten, and the New South Wales opposition leader, Luke Foley, for initially each visiting Murwillumbah and Lismore and meeting firsthand and listening to local residents, business and council representatives, and the SES volunteers and community groups. In fact, both held roundtable meetings with all of these community leaders. I note that New South Wales Labor subsequently released an 11-point plan to address many of these urgent issues that were raised at these meetings. To date, the New South Wales Liberal-National government have failed to lend support, let alone adopt the plan, despite the offer of bipartisan support from Labor.
I also thank the New South Wales opposition leader for returning again to the North Coast last week, meeting with locals in Tumbulgum, Murwillumbah and Lismore and continuing his consultations with business and community representatives. He also renewed his call on the state government to waive payroll tax for flood-affected businesses and to set up two separate funds: a local government infrastructure fund and a business assistance fund. I also note that last Thursday the Tweed Shire Council passed a resolution calling on the New South Wales government to waive the payroll tax. I thank council for their advocacy.
Whilst we have a very strong community on the North Coast, we need government to support us. I acknowledge both the Prime Minister and the New South Wales Premier did visit Murwillumbah very briefly soon after the event. But I call on them now to come back for a substantial period of time, sit down with our community and business leaders, hear their stories and hear about the action needed, and help us to recover and rebuild our region.
I also note that the Murwillumbah District Business Chamber have just last Wednesday written to the New South Wales Premier requesting that she visit Murwillumbah for a round-table meeting with both business and community representatives to update her on the continuing dire situation the community faces many weeks after the flood. The chamber said that they are happy to meet with the Premier at any time that suits her, but they want the meeting to take place soon. So I call on the New South Wales Premier to listen to our community and immediately commit to this meeting. To date, quite frankly, Premier, you have been absolutely disappointing when it comes to failing to provide assistance to our community. The fact is that we need comprehensive, long-term plans to address the mass destruction caused by the floods. We need much greater funds flowing to affected families, businesses, communities and local governments. We also desperately need more funding to address chronic homelessness issues. Just recently Murwillumbah as a community held a march and rally to highlight these issues. The fact is that we need our governments to help us and help us now. It is that desperate.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (11:07): I thank the member for Page for bringing this motion to the House. It is nearly two months since the devastating floods in the Logan and Albert rivers devastated our communities. On the morning of 31 March 2017 we sat and watched as the Albert River rose at a record speed and devastated communities along the Albert River valley. Over the weekend we saw the flooding in the Logan River as the flooding moved downstream. In Forde and across most of the country's east coast we have heard comments from various of my colleagues. We have to thank the resilience and community spirit shown and the unwavering commitment to helping our fellow citizens.
Nowhere has this commitment been more obviously displayed than by the men and women who make up our emergency services. Today I would like to take the opportunity to recognise and congratulate our SES, our urban and rural fire brigades, our police force and our defence services, not only for their swift response to the crisis, but for going above and beyond the call of duty to save lives. An incredible example of such commitment played out in Luscombe on Friday 31 March. Our local SES controller, Jim Ferguson, received a call at 3 am from the Queensland police service informing him that three people, a mother and two children, were trapped on a roof surrounds by rising floodwaters of the Albert River. Jim wasted no time and sprang into action, meeting with fellow volunteers Claire Browning and Chris Holloway at the Beenleigh SES depot. They prepared the closest flood rescue boat and drove to the Stanmore Road bridge before completing a hair-raising launch into the raging Albert River. With Claire on the spotlight, Chris navigating and Jim driving, the trio steered the boat as best they could through the trees and floating debris, crouching to avoid power lines.
A journey that would normally take 10 minutes took significantly longer. Half an hour into their journey they were joined by local farmer Mick Pearce, who assisted them navigate their way through that part of the river. Shortly after this, their engine failed. They were able to clear the obstruction, a hose that was caught around the propeller, and resume their search for the now desperate family. They were joined by local man Sam Elliott, who helped them get as close as possible; he lived just across the road. As they pulled up to the dwelling, they saw the mum and the kids; they also saw the grandfather standing in deep water on the second story verandah. As Chris manoeuvred the boat alongside the verandah, Jim was able to jump out and begin the process of rescuing the family. He was able to speak with the mother, Helen, and assure her that she and her two children would be brought to safety. Jim first carried the daughter to the safe care of Mr Elliott before returning for the son. He then helped Helen down and turned his attention to the grandfather and also a couple of dogs. In the end, this brave trio saved the family in the nick of time; about 10 minutes later, there was a loud crack as the house broke from its foundations and floated down the river.
This is just one example of an enormous effort by our SES volunteers to assist those in dire need. Unfortunately, Nelson Raebel, from Eagleby, did lose his life in this flood event. I travelled around the electorate on that weekend and looked at the devastation in places such as Falls Road—where the rescue we have just spoken about happened—Albert Street, Old Mill Road, Beige Road, Arthur Road, Sharon Road and many others I do not have time to name here. A great number of our community helped those in very difficult circumstances. I would like to thank our community for their support, care and consideration for those in a most difficult time.
Mr DICK (Oxley) (11:12): I acknowledge and thank the member for Page for this motion. Residents in his electorate and throughout Lismore were hit particularly hard by the flooding caused by Cyclone Debbie. I would also like to acknowledge my colleague the member for Richmond and the residents of her electorate in northern New South Wales who also came into hard times from the impact of the cyclone. Cyclone Debbie wreaked chaos and devastation for Australians all the way up the east coast. When it crossed the coast on Tuesday, March 28, and in the days and weeks following, communities have felt the effects—from Mackay and Townsville in North Queensland all the way down to northern New South Wales and beyond.
As we just heard from the member for Forde and the member for Rankin, whose electorate is a 15-minute drive from my local community, homes and businesses were inundated by flood water, including the famous Yatala pie shop, which was flooded all the way to the ceiling. The Logan and Albert rivers reached levels not seen in 40 years, and around 100 properties were evacuated. Further north, 650 properties were declared uninhabitable and more than 65,000 customers lost electricity supply as Cyclone Debbie brought torrential rain and gale force winds. Sadly, three Queenslanders lost their lives, with further tragedies in northern New South Wales through this terrible event. Our thoughts and prayers go out to their families and their friends.
This truly was an awful event on any scale. However, as Queenslanders have shown before, it is through the worst of times that we show our best. Almost 5,000 Queensland government workers were deployed in preparation for and in response to Cyclone Debbie. Their work, alongside volunteers and charity workers, has made an incredible difference. I pay tribute to the emergency personnel, state emergency services, rural fire services, police, fire brigades, the ADF and other emergency service men and women who put their own lives at risk to save others. Led by Brigadier Chris Field throughout this disaster, your invaluable work and contribution does not go unnoticed, and we thank you for your tireless efforts.
I want to acknowledge the Palaszczuk government for their thorough preparation and swift response in the days leading up to Cyclone Debbie, throughout the disaster and continuing through today, helping Queenslanders recover. In this time, more than 100,000 grants have been paid out to Queenslanders in need following Tropical Cyclone Debbie, totalling more than $28.4 million. On top of this, the Palaszczuk government has committed a further $1 million to associated charities, including the Red Cross, to assist with recovery efforts. This support was matched by the Queensland business community, including companies such as BHP, Rio Tinto, Adani, QBE, Peabody, Shell, Tabcorp, Woolworths, Coles and IGA, who made significant contributions to the Red Cross and the Salvation Army.
Following on from the recovery process, the government has released a two-year state recovery plan called Operation Queensland Recovery. Today I call on the Prime Minister to continue this good work and jointly fund the $220 million assistance package to further support Queenslanders that the Premier has proposed through the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements. This joint fund, of which the Queensland government will fund half, will be a $220 million package to provide additional assistance for communities, businesses, industry and the environment. We need this government and the state government to work together to make sure that the local communities receive the help they need and deserve. It was only last year that the Prime Minister was caught out dragging his feet to the table when $1 billion in disaster relief funding to Queenslanders was delayed by six months by the Commonwealth government. We know that there is an opportunity for this federal government to partner with the Queensland government. Today I call on the Prime Minister to work with the Palaszczuk government to jointly fund the recovery package. Our local communities have been through enough in Queensland. They deserve support from this Commonwealth government.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (11:17): Preparations for Tropical Cyclone Debbie got into full swing in the days before it crossed the coast in my electorate of Dawson, which was directly hit by the cyclone. North Queensland is no stranger to cyclones, and many of the locals knew that they would be in for a tough, long week as it approached.
Radio announcers prepared themselves for days on air, because they are often the only means of communication with the outside world on what the cyclone is doing once the power and the telecommunications go out. Five announcers stayed on rotation at 4MK and Star FM, with Dave Perkins, Barry Hamilton, Rob Kidd, Emilie-Jain Palmer and Scott Linden getting very little sleep. At Triple M it was Jay and Dave, Ange and Joel, and Johnno and Miki manning the fort. Some veterans of quite a few cyclones—Meecham Philpott at Tropical North, with Tegan Philpott, Cathy Border and Loretta Ryan—also did a fantastic job.
Newspapers these days have the online front of 24-hour news coverage. We had the Daily Mercury, the Mackay newspaper. The team there—Campbell Gellie, Jacob Miley and Tara Cassidy—were pumping out community alerts all through that cyclone period. In the Whitsundays itself, at the Whitsunday Times and the Whitsunday Coast Guardian, both pre and post the cyclone we had Sharon Smallwood and her great team of reporters on the ground alerting people. That communication is vital for any community that is facing a natural disaster like this.
Doctors and nurses got themselves ready. I heard of one nurse who left her home at the beach to stay in town because she knew she would be needed at the hospital. Another nurse stayed with an elderly patient who was discharged from hospital before the cyclone, because she knew that patient would be scared and alone if the storm hit.
Before the cyclone had crossed, the Australian Army was already on its way to the affected area, and the day after the crossing I met with the State Recovery Coordinator, Brigadier Chris Field, and his team, who were on the streets delivering fresh water to people who had no water and no services. I have to say there was this really special group of volunteers on the ground. Their name is Team Rubicon, and they are made up predominantly of ex-service men and women, people who have served this country. They have done enough for this country, yet they are back home, in civilian life now, serving the country again in times of natural disaster.
Locally there was the Whitsundays volunteer group, led by Jo Sweeney and Andrew Sloane and so many others—hundreds of people who got together, helping out their mates. And the Lions Clubs all joined together to feed volunteers and to feed locals. The owner of a restaurant there went out of his way to feed something like 4,000 people across two days. The same thing happened on Hamilton Island, where the Oatley family went out of their way to feed everyone. I met with SES volunteers from the local region, from state and interstate, and Red Cross volunteers—people out there lending a hand to families whose homes were destroyed or damaged and were cleaning debris from yards and streets. In the days after the cyclone's crossing, the whole region was actually littered with the trucks of energy workers, many of them stationed at the Mackay showgrounds or up in the Burdekin. Teams from Ergon and Energex worked for a fortnight to bring the power back online. It was extremely quick, ahead of schedule, right across the Whitsundays and the Mackay region.
Our regions owe a great deal of gratitude to the many emergency service workers, health workers and volunteers for their hard work and lack of sleep during that ordeal. Many businesses and dedicated staff in the Whitsundays did an amazing job to get the region back to normal. We now have visitors from around the world coming once again to enjoy the beautiful Whitsundays. Many of them would have no idea that the cyclone had crossed there less than two months ago. While some island resorts have work to do and a few mainland businesses are still to get back on their feet, the speedy recovery to date should be applauded.
In the days after the cyclone there were many people stepping up to the plate, and I would love to acknowledge them all. But what I would say is that at the time of that natural disaster the people of Mackay and the Whitsundays showed their true mettle.
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (11:22): I rise in this place today to speak about Cyclone Debbie. Cyclones present a very stressful time for a community. Having experienced cyclones such as Althea, Larry, Yasi and others that have passed down the Queensland coast, I have firsthand experience of the distressing impacts on a regional community. Watching people's homes being completely demolished and people living without power and basic services for weeks is very stressful for families. The loss to the economy and the often-forgotten mental health related impact on a community can be devastating, especially for the elderly, the frail and people living with disabilities. In my previous life I had to plan for services and support to be delivered to vulnerable people in our community before and after a cyclone, and I can assure you that it is incredibly stressful—not to mention the devastation where lives are lost. I pay my respect and sympathy to the families who have lost loved ones during extreme weather events.
But what is truly amazing in regional, rural and remote communities is when people come together and provide the most amazing support to each other, often to people they do not know, in what we would call incredibly challenging and difficult times. Luckily in Townsville we have great infrastructure and people on the ground to deal with such dramatic weather events: Lavarack Barracks Brigadier Christopher Fields, who was appointed to lead the state recovery activities; the Townsville defence forces, in particular the engineers; the police; the fire brigade; the SES workers; the Queensland government; the Townsville Health and Hospital Service; the local disaster management group, led by the Townsville City Council. They all did a magnificent job in what were extremely difficult and challenging circumstances.
Townsville was very lucky regarding Cyclone Debbie, but our neighbours to the south were hit very hard by this severe weather event. The impact on communities in terms of rising insurance bills as a result of a cyclone with the force and impact of Debbie is also staggering and often forgotten. In some cases, people are left in a position where they can no longer afford to pay their insurance bill and are left very vulnerable after extreme weather events.
I also speak on behalf of the Palm Island community, where I say they dodged a bullet. Palm Island is a community that is more than two hours ferry ride from Townsville. It has no cyclone shelter at all. This is a community that is reliant in some cases on generators for electricity, and there are numerous mobile black spots. A large majority of Palm Island residents do not live in homes that are cyclone proof, with some people living in tent-like accommodation. If Cyclone Debbie had crossed the coast and hit Palm Island, as it appeared to be predicted to early on Saturday morning, this would have devastated this community. Palm Island needs a community cyclone shelter. It is one of the barest necessities that a community should have during a natural disaster. We know cyclone shelters can and do save lives. I will fight hard for a cyclone shelter for Palm Island, because the community there deserves one and is in desperate need of a cyclone shelter.
With tropical cyclones being a regular occurrence in tropical North Queensland, the Bureau of Meteorology plays a vital role in Townsville. The Bureau of Meteorology provides lifesaving services for the North, and its work during disasters like Cyclone Debbie and, in 2011, Cyclone Yasi is absolutely critical. That is why whispers of this government potentially moving staff from the bureau are life altering for people in North Queensland. We need to have secure knowledge that the Bureau of Meteorology will be situated in the heartland of some of the worst natural disasters in this country. We need to know that we have that service provided to us. We must be able to keep their finger on the pulse. They liaise with the community. They sound the alarm bells when needed. Our community needs all of the staff and the Bureau of Meteorology to stay in Townsville.
I would also like to commend the radio stations. In a severe weather event such as a cyclone, the radio station is the lifeblood and the voice to the community. In our city, we had a number of extraordinary radio stations that went out of their way to seek contributions from members of the public. They then collected these contributions of food, water, shampoo, conditioner, soap and things of that nature, and they delivered those to the communities in need just south of us.
I call on the Turnbull government to commit to the fact that we will not just have our cyclone related staff in metropolitan areas.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
BILLS
Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (11:28): It is with great pleasure that I stand today to support the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill. The bill preserves the independence of the Fair Work Commission but appropriately guides the exercise of its discretion to ensure wages are not cut. Last week the McKell Institute released a report into the impacts of cutting workers' take-home pay on regional and rural Australia by reducing Sunday penalty rates. The McKell Institute confirms what Labor has long been arguing—that cutting the wages of workers in regional communities will rip money out of these economies and workers will lose up to a staggering $667 million each year, and $289 million each year will be lost to those regions entirely.
The latest data suggests 7,585 workers in my regional electorate of Braddon are set to lose $9.9 million each year when penalty rates are cut—a devastating hit to local workers and the local economy. My region is set to lose at least $3.2 million as businesses that are not locally owned take money out of the local economy. This means any savings that businesses claim they will make from cuts in penalty rates will not feed back into the local economy as they shift their savings from labour costs elsewhere. There are 2,009 workers in the retail industry in my electorate who stand to lose almost $6.6 million each year in disposable income.
The McKell Institute's report's findings:
… reinforce the notion that penalty rate pay is central to the livelihoods of significant portions of the Australian workforce, and is vitally important to local economies around the country.
I note some of the other electorates that have been mentioned in this report. It only takes one Liberal or National Party MP to cross the floor and vote with Labor to ensure that their local economies are not hit. The McKell Institute report mentions a number of these Nationals and Liberal MPs' electorates. The electorate of Dawson—and the member for Dawson was just in this chamber—is set to be hit, with $18.7 million to be taken out of that economy. The member for Fairfax is sitting opposite here at the moment, and his electorate will lose $16.8 million from its economy. The electorate of Leichhardt, extraordinarily, will lose $21 million out of its economy. If you are standing up for local businesses, if you are standing up for the local economies in your electorates, then you will vote for this bill.
With the increase in casualisation and insecure work, the regions will feel the impact of reduced disposable income more than elsewhere. Cuts to penalty rates will hurt local workers, with some employees losing close to $77 a week. And if you are struggling to make ends meet, that will be a huge hit to your weekly budget.
I say to those members on the other side: just go and speak to these workers. Have a conversation. Ask them what it means to them to have their penalty rates cut—what it means to them to have less money to take home each week—and I am sure you will be more inclined to vote with Labor on this bill.
In my role as the secretary of Labor's Australian jobs task force, I have heard many of these stories. For us, it may not be a lot of money—we are MPs on MPs' salaries. But, when you are talking to those people on low and middle incomes, you can hear that a small reduction for us is a huge hit for them. I met a young girl who was in unstable accommodation. She worked in retail. She worked a few hours on a Sunday. The amount of money that she will lose from this change to her take-home pay may mean a couple of coffees for us each week at Aussies—seriously, for us, it may not seem a lot of money—but, for her, every dollar counts. She is saving to fund a bond and up-front rent and for other items, so that she can go and live in accommodation where she feels stable. So those hits are extraordinary.
Last week, I was very pleased to host the member for Sydney at an event at the Beach Hotel in Burnie. The proprietor has said that he will not pass on the cuts to penalty rates to his employees because he understands the importance of that disposable income—not just for his business, and not just for those people who come in there and buy a beer at the end of the week because they can afford to, but for his employees. Because he values his employees, he knows the difference that will make to them, and he wants to be an employer of choice. I commend any other business in my electorate to take heed of that and to ensure that they protect their workers as well.
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (11:33): All roads lead to the Leader of the Opposition's ambition—that is all this is about. At the end of the day, the Leader of the Opposition is under an enormous amount of strain. He knows that the member for Grayndler is going after him and he is going after him hard. And so he should, because, at the end of the day, he has failed to represent the very people he has spent his entire career purporting to represent—and that is the workers. The motion that he has put forward, the amendment he is suggesting, is to place severe restrictions on those who work under modern awards, but he wants to free up life for anybody who negotiates with a union for an enterprise agreement.
He does not want a level playing field. And that is the problem with the Leader of the Opposition—he does not want a level playing field with the member for Grayndler; he certainly does not want a level playing field out in the marketplace when it comes to the union movement, because he knows that the Australian people, the Australian workers, no longer trust the union movement. He knows that the unions will do in the workers, time and time again.
So what do you do? Well, what the Leader of the Opposition is doing is to seek to restrict what can be done under the modern award. He seeks to restrict what the Fair Work Commission can do. Why would this be? It only serves to increase the negotiating power of the union movement. That is it, period.
There is a part of me that would appreciate that, if indeed the union movement protected workers. But the union movement have proven time and again that they fail to protect the workers. Let me have a look at the EBA for those poor people who are working at KFC, who get zero penalty rates on the weekend under their union agreement. That union agreement, under clause 40.2, says that the employer undertakes to positively promote union membership by recommending that all employees join the union. All employees, including new employees at the point of recruitment, shall be given an application form to join the union together with a statement of the employer's policy.
Is it any wonder that the Labor Party will do whatever it takes to ensure that the union movement has a competitive advantage? It is very simple: the more people they can get into their union movement, the more money will flow to the Labor Party. This is a cash grab. This is an ambition of the Leader of the Opposition to ensure that one, he keeps his job; two, the Labor Party keeps getting cashed up. That is what this is about. Do not believe for a moment any of this nonsense that this motion is actually to help the workers. Not only does it harm workers and leave them vulnerable to manipulation by the union movement; it penalises small business—small businesses that not only are the lifeblood of this economy, but are the very ones who are creating jobs, particularly in regional and rural Australia; small businesses that are not unionised like big corporations. The unions do not have the same arrangement with small businesses, so what would you want to do? You would think you would want to ensure a level playing field. But no, not the Leader of the Opposition—the Leader of the Opposition wants to ensure that there is no level playing field. He wants to ensure that small businesses suffer, that they are penalised for not engaging unionised labour. That is all this is: seeking to ensure that there is a cost differential between small and large businesses.
If the Labor Party cared for the worker; if the Labor Party cared for regional and rural areas, in particular; if the Labor Party cared for small business, they would be allowing the Fair Work Commission to do their job with independence. They would not be trying to put the big guidance hand on them to take away their discretion, to apply something retrospectively which takes away their very independence. They would not be punishing small business and the worker. The Labor Party should go back to its roots and start representing what they purport to represent.
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (11:38): I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017. I was sent here to represent the interests of the people of Burt and this country. The people of Burt are facing hard times—the sluggish economy, especially in Western Australia, low wages growth and many complex issues including high crime and intergenerational unemployment. Many people in my electorate are low-paid workers, and they rely on the rates to get by—to put food on the table and to keep a roof over their head. So the last thing they need is a cut to their wages. That is what the Fair Work Commission's decision to cut penalty rates will deliver from July this year: a 20 per cent reduction in Sunday wages. The Turnbull government's agreement with the Fair Work Commission decision to cut penalty rates for workers in Burt and across Australia is a travesty. The government's decision not to support Labor's legislation to protect penalty rates is a kick in the teeth to the low-paid workers of Burt, Western Australia and across Australia. It is also a kick in the teeth to the WA economy. We need people to have money in their pockets, not just so they can pay for the essentials of life and support their families, but so they can spend money in our shops and businesses and grow more jobs in Western Australia.
The Turnbull government's refusal to protect penalty rates shows them for who they really are: out of touch, antiworker, anti-WA and un-Australian. Under the Fair Work Act, the Fair Work Commission must ensure that modern awards, together with the National Employment Standards, provide a fair and relevant safety net of terms and conditions. This must be taken into account when varying modern awards. However, this decision reduces Sunday penalty rates for retail award workers from 200 per cent to 150 per cent. It reduces public holiday penalty rates for employees in the hospitality, restaurants, fast-food, retail and pharmacy awards. It varies late-night penalties and also varies the fast-food award late-night loadings.
The Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017—from Labor—ensures that modern awards cannot be varied to reduce penalty rates or the hours for which penalty rates apply if the variation is likely to result in a reduction in the take-home pay of an employee. This amendment ensures that modern awards are a safety net for the take-home pay of employees currently under an award or of prospective employees under an award. For the avoidance of doubt, it amends definitions to take-home pay to make it clear that all employees under modern awards are to receive the full benefit in their take-home pay of any increases to minimum wages.
But why are we here? Part of this is the eternal lie that the need to be open on Sundays somehow makes us a more attractive international nation. But those who have ever gone on a walkabout on a Sunday through the streets of Barcelona, New York or London—international cities all, and none seemingly failing in attracting international tourism—have seen that all have many shops and businesses happily closed on a Sunday. The question really needs to be asked: why is it that we are seeing a continuous attack on staff costs, which is never matched by attacks on inflated rents and other business costs that also act to stop businesses from opening a Sunday?
The effect of this decision from Fair Work is supposedly to increase employment—something most critical in Western Australia, where unemployment is much higher than the national average. It is also supposed to help address underemployment. However, most places open on a Sunday are already operating at an efficient capacity; they are unlikely to be putting on more staff or giving staff more hours. Even so, this dastardly opinion about having to work longer means that the option is given to workers that if they want to try and keep their take-home pay they are going to have to work more hours just to match what they were already on—but, seemingly, this will be actually unavailable. In addition, while there may be some establishments that are able—with these changes—to now open on Sunday when they previously did not, for most that is not going to be the case at all. The RBA has been saying for a long time that we need wages growth and that economic growth is being held back by a lack of wages growth. We finally have inflation back into the target range, at 2.1 per cent, but wages growth is only 1.9 per cent. Workers are going backwards at the moment, and the government, by opposing this bill and making sure that we entrench the cuts to penalty rates, is making all of this worse. This is worse for the economy and is not going to provide any growth at all.
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (11:43): I rise today to commend the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017 to the House. This bill will protect the take-home pay for the 13,000 workers in my electorate who are facing a take-home pay cut if this bill does not get support in this chamber. In the electorate of Lalor there are 8,866 retail workers and 4,660 food and accommodation workers. One in seven workers in my electorate will be impacted if this piece of legislation is not passed to protect the take-home pay of workers and to protect penalty rates. My community is one of the hardest hit electorates. Modelling shows that, out of all 150 electorates, we will be the ninth hardest hit.
This is an electorate which cannot afford this hit on its local economy. This is an electorate where I have stood for the past four years with my Labor colleagues to defend against the zombie cuts that would have damaged our local economy. And here we are again, fighting to protect our local economy. Those on the opposite side of this House claim to be standing up for small business, but I know that many small businesses will be impacted detrimentally if these cuts come through on 1 July.
This is just a small piece of my electorate and in my community of the 1.7 million Australians working in the retail, food and hospitality industries, and the up to 700,000 who will be directly impacted by the cut to penalty rates. The decision impacts on workers in pubs and hotels; in fast food and take away stores; in retail stores and businesses; and in pharmacies and chemists. It impacts on workers earning less than $40,000 a year. We are back in that place where this government's attacks on vulnerable Australians continue.
This bill is an opportunity for those opposite to think about the people who live in my community and who face a $77 a week pay cut; to think about the people they rent from; to think about the people who run the small businesses where they shop; to think about the impacts that this will have on our local economy and on individuals and families within Lalor. And this is just the start. If the Fair Work Commission is allowed to have a unilateral cut to people's pay rates it will not stop there. There are already reviews being called for into other industries. So the impacts from here could grow.
It is imperative that this bill be passed in this parliament. It is imperative that we act to protect the vulnerable workers around this country who face a real wage cut. I cannot fathom that I am standing in this place in 2017, confronted with the notion that there can be a direct pay cut delivered by this parliament. It is an absolute disgrace—an absolute disgrace! The impact in my electorate is on young people, on women and on low-income families—families for whom two incomes might add up to $60,000 a year, and they are going to take a cut. In some families, both wage earners will take a cut. It is an absolute disgrace. I implore those opposite to think about what this means for workers in this country, to think about what it means for families and to think about how they would feel if they were facing a very real cut to their wages.
We have heard a lot about this; we can stand here and pick out individuals and talk about the impact on their families. But, for me, one of the strongest memories is sitting in this chamber when Margarita was upstairs here at a question time. I want to make it really clear that on this side of the chamber we stand with Margarita and workers around this country who are facing this very real cut. I stand with Margarita and those on this side of the House stand with Margarita, and we stand with everybody else who she represents. Unlike those opposite, we will not attack Margarita because she is a member of a union, because we understand that she is a member of a union to try to save herself $77 a week. Anyone in this country who has not seen the writing on the wall and moved to join a union really needs to start listening and to start reading Hansard, to know what this government is up to and how much it wants to attack workers in this country.
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (11:48): It is a great pleasure to rise to support the Leader of the Opposition's bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017, in this House. We just heard from the member for Lalor; it is always hard to follow her, because she does a great job in this parliament, both as a whip and as a speaker.
The reason she got to speak was that the government have put up such a forthright defence in their backing of the Fair Work Commission's cut on penalty rates. They put up one speaker: the member for Fairfax, who swept in here with his delusions about the way the industrial relations system works, and then he swept back out again. Then we had the member for Hughes up here. He was going to give us his normal rate and rave, but even he did not have his heart in it today; he sort of wandered out of the chamber. And then I thought that that member for Barker was going to make a contribution, but he walked up to talk to my honourable colleague at the dispatch box to find out if he would speak at his AGM!
That is the government's defence for their backing of probably the first cut to penalty rates in living memory; it is probably the first since the Great Depression. This is from a government whose opening lines in the budget was a sort of apology for the fact that Australian workers have not had a pay rise in a long time. The apology about wages growth got spat out of the Treasurer's mouth at about the fourth or fifth paragraph. What do we find from the ABC News article on 17 May—Michael Janda was the reporter:
Wage growth remained at record lows …
The ABS figure is 1.9 per cent. The article goes on to state:
… the lowest on Bureau of Statistics figures that go back to the late 1990s, and probably the slowest rate of pay rises since the last recession.
So what we have here is a government that, on the one hand, is bemoaning the fact that Australians have not had a pay rise, acknowledging that it is a problem in the macro economy and telling everybody, 'Oh, this is a terrible thing,' and apologising for it in their budget, but, on the other hand, backing—not rolling into this House and defending—a decision to cut $77 a week from 700,000 workers. My colleagues have pointed out the extraordinary effect this will have on local economies, but let me just tell you how it will affect South Australia. The McKell report into penalty rates and how it would affect local economies said on page 18 of the report:
In South Australia the study estimates that:
… A partial abolition of penalty rates in the retail and hospitality sectors would result in:
Workers in Rural South Australia losing between $34.7 million p.a. and $66.2 million p.a. …
This is money that comes out of local communities. This is money that comes out of local cafes. This is money that comes out of local economies, which are already suffering from a low demand situation. It is a strange situation where at least one of the members opposite wants to come in here and defend the government's backing of the Fair Work Commission but most of them are hiding under their desks because they dare not come into this chamber and say that cutting penalty is a good idea. Workers in rural South Australia and rural communities all over the country and workers in city cafes all know it is a terrible idea for our economy.
You just think to yourself: what is going on in this government that it would oppose a bill that sensibly restricts the Fair Work Commission from hacking into the penalty rates of hospitality and retail workers and the further flow-on effects that would have? We all know that employers, having taken one small bite of the workers' apple, are not going stop there. Everybody who has ever bargained on behalf of workers knows that if you give up $77 to 700,000 workers it will not be enough; they will come after the rest in the very next bite of the apple. Everybody who has worked in industrial relations knows that.
The government want to talk about the Labor Party. They want to talk about the union movement. They want to talk a lot. But the time is to act. And they can act by backing Bill's bill, which sensibly protects take-home pay, it sensibly restricts the Fair Work Commission from hacking into workers' wages and it protects the overall economy when we do that. We protect the overall economy and every business, small or large, within it.
Debate adjourned.
Biosecurity Amendment (Ballast Water and Other Measures) Bill 2017
Crimes Amendment (Penalty Unit) Bill 2017
Disability Services Amendment (Linking Upper Age Limits for Disability Employment Services to Pension Age) Bill 2017
Parliamentary Business Resources Bill 2017
Parliamentary Business Resources (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017
Personal Property Securities Amendment (PPS Leases) Bill 2017
Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Polar Code) Bill 2017
Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017
Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Jobs Path: Prepare, Trial, Hire) Bill 2016
Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
COMMITTEES
Public Works Committee
Report
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (11:54): On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the fourth report for the year 2017 on referrals made December 2016 and February 2017. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr BUCHHOLZ: by leave—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present the committee's fourth report for 2017 on three proposals referred in December 2016 and February 2017. The first proposal is for the refurbishment of the Australian Embassy in Washington DC. The project will demolish the existing embassy building, which has aged and is quickly deteriorating. It will replace it with a modern iconic building with a project cost estimated around $236 million.
In brief, what will happen in that space in Washington is that our embassy will take up temporary residence in a leased property. That leased property will have to be specced up to security specifications. We currently have tenants, and we will need to service their requirements in Washington. We will do a demolish of the existing embassy. In Washington, under the local town planning act, we are unable to go higher to cater for the extra floor space that we need because the town planning act requires that no building can be higher than the top of the spire of Capitol Hill on top of the Congress. So that must always remain the highest building in Washington DC. So we are going to put another basement in our Washington embassy.
The second proposal is for a fit-out of a new leased premise for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection headquarters in Canberra. The department currently leases about 12 different office spaces around Canberra. We are looking to consolidate that to five buildings and bring resources back in under one roof. The department advises that this will achieve some life savings during the project of some $236 million in reduced rent alone, notwithstanding the efficiencies we will get from reducing from 12 properties to five. In addition to these savings, the work will allow the Australian Border Force to have its operational headquarters in a single location rather than being spread across several properties around Canberra. This consolidation will assist in making Border Force and its operational areas far more effective and efficient. It will help to ensure that Border Force of those tasked with protecting Australia's borders are better equipped to do so.
These works will provide an unified watchfloor with the capability of uninterrupted operations 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The works will also provide Border Force with far more flexibility at their operational headquarters, allowing them to make changes that enhance their capacity to respond to the evolving security environment on our borders with the appropriate speed. The project cost is estimated at $255.3 million, excluding GST.
I would also like to draw to the attention of the House the unauthorised disclosure of committee proceedings in the media last week. Confidential proceedings of the committee appeared in a major newspaper. The matter will be considered by the committee in due course.
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal is also seeking to consolidate its Melbourne presence through this proposal. It currently leases space in four locations. That will reduce to one location in Melbourne CBD. The project cost estimated is $15.68 million, excluding GST.
The committee recommends that these three proposals should be agreed and proceeded with. I commend the report to the House. I move:
That the House take note of the report.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (11:58): I want to speak briefly with respect to the report and endorse the comments of the chair of the committee, with the exception of one matter that he alluded to in his remarks—that is, the matter with respect to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection headquarters project. That project seeks approval from the committee to fit out four leased buildings in Belconnen and the Canberra Airport precinct areas of the Australian Capital Territory. The estimated cost of those fit-outs is around $255.3 million, excluding GST.
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection currently leases 100,000 square metres of office space in 12 properties across four Canberra locations. According to the department, the current leases are all approaching the end of their terms, which I understand expire between 2017 and 2020. This project is important in order to meet the evolving requirements of the integrated department. The headquarters project was therefore initiated. The benefits of consolidation will include providing long-term lease savings to the Commonwealth at a reduced office rent rate and a reduction in the number of buildings in the department's ACT lease portfolio from 12 separate tenancies down to five. That is the basis for the project.
The $255 million that is being asked for is comprised of around $212 million in lease incentives offered by the building owners, $25 million of Commonwealth funds provided through the 2014-15 budget and $18 million of internal costs from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. The department states that consolidation into the four properties will result in a $236 million saving over the life of this project of about 30 years. This was based on a cost-benefit analysis provided to government by Synergy Group Australia in April 2016—that is, about a year ago. The $212 million lease incentive is made up of $136.4 million in building owner contributions and $75.9 million in up-front capital funding, amortised over a 15-year period. That, in essence, is how the $212 million incentive is made up. The cost-benefit analysis was based on a 30-year analysis, which, indeed, differs from the lease arrangements for this project, which provide for a 15-year initial term with two five-year rights of renewal thereafter. The analysis is also based on assumptions which include the department's long-term needs and operations and future market rental rates. Labor members of the Public Works Committee did not support this proposal. Whilst we did not have the opportunity to provide a dissenting report, we nevertheless wanted to make it clear that this was a project that we would not have supported and that we do not support.
The fit-out costs for the 32,924-square-metre airport precinct are $72.55 million or $2,204 per square metre. For the Belconnen precinct, the cost is $109 million or $1,964 per square metre for the 55,518 square metres being leased. Labor members of the Public Works Committee were not convinced that the proposal represents good value for money. Advice provided to the committee about incentive payments was confusing and inconsistent with other interpretations about the term 'lease incentives'. In fact, that point was made clear in subsequent cost-benefit analysis that was provided to the committee only recently, and that could have been made clearer in the first instance by the department.
The lease rate for the airport precinct in particular appears high when all factors are taken into consideration. Our understanding is that that particular building has been vacant for many years. The costs being paid per square metre would appear to be high under the circumstances, and we believe a better deal could have been reached. The projected 30-year savings of $236 million are very speculative and based on matters which are subject to continuous change. Not only do they extend beyond the 25-year possible lease period but they also clearly take into account speculation or assumptions about the needs of the department in 10, 20 or 30 years time. Those needs may well change. As we have seen in recent years, they have changed, and it is very likely there will be changes with respect to the lease rates that are available for properties in the Canberra area. So making assumptions about what might or might not be needed and what might or might not be the costs in 10, 20 or 30 years time was not convincing to Labor members of the committee.
Finally, the evidence to justify the proposal and expenditure was also at times vague and failed to address matters raised by committee members at the hearings. The current buildings that the various departments are located within, in our view, may well have been appropriate for future use as well. Again, we were not convinced that they needed to be relocated. Lastly, on the issue of refurbishment and costs, again, when compared with other floor space leased by the Commonwealth in other buildings, they would appear to be high. Again, Labor members were not convinced by the arguments put to the committee that those costs were reasonable under the circumstances and that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection required additional refurbishments that generally caused costs to be much higher. For those reasons, we opposed that particular proposal, but we supported all the others.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): Your comments are noted. I ask the member for Wright to move a motion in relation to the report.
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (12:05): I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (12:05): I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
Intelligence and Security Committee
Report
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (12:06): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's report entitled Annual report of committee activities 2015-16.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr HASTIE: by leave—I am pleased to present the committee's annual report for 2015-16. The national focus on counter-terrorism measures continued throughout 2015-16 with further legislative reform leading to significant activity by the committee.
The committee maintained its bipartisan approach to reviewing proposed changes to Australia's national security legislation and in 2015-16 concluded inquiries into the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill and the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill. Across these two inquiries, the committee made 41 recommendations that sought to strengthen the provisions of each bill and ensure that they included appropriate safeguards and oversight mechanisms. I note that the government accepted all of the committee's recommendations.
The committee also continued to fulfil its key statutory oversight responsibilities. The Intelligence Services Act requires the committee to review the administration and expenditure of the six Australian intelligence agencies on an annual basis. The committee completed its review for 2013-14, concluding that agencies were overseeing their administration and expenditure appropriately.
As it had in previous years, the committee looked closely at the impact of the efficiency dividend and other savings measures on agencies. It sought assurances that each agency continue to have the necessary resources to address Australia's national security priorities. The committee noted that increases to the ongoing funding of intelligence agencies and the Office of National Assessments exemption from the efficiency dividend addressed the committee's concerns that funding cuts to agencies were affecting ongoing capability or operations. The committee has continued to monitor these issues in its subsequent reviews, which it will report upon in its next annual report.
Also during this period, the committee conducted its second review of the Australian Federal Police's performance of its functions under part 5.3 of the Criminal Code, which contains the Commonwealth terrorism offences, control order regime and preventative detention order regime. The committee also reviewed and supported the re-listing of five terrorist organisations.
Our evolving security environment has required the expansion of the functions, oversight and security responsibilities of the committee. Following the expansion of the committee's functions that occurred in 2014-15, the committee obtained additional responsibilities following passage of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill. This included the requirement that the committee review the operation, effectiveness and implications of certain parts of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 by 1 December 2019 and an ongoing power to review any declaration of a 'terrorist organisation' under that act.
The committee accepts that recent operational experience has demonstrated that our legislation must adapt to the evolving threats facing Australia, so that our security and law enforcement agencies are agile enough to protect the Australian people.
Of course, as a liberal democracy, we must always seek to balance our security measures against the freedom of all Australians from unconstitutional government interference in our lives.
The scrutiny and oversight functions performed by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security hold the intelligence agencies and national security powers accountable to the Australian people.
I commend the report to the House.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (12:10): by leave—Labor welcomes this annual report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security which provides an important accountability mechanism to the parliament and to the Australian public. Annual reports of the intelligence committee provide insight into the committee's work concerning Australia's intelligence agencies and national security powers.
Labor is proud of the bipartisan work we do through the intelligence committee to ensure all national security legislation is fit for purpose. Both in opposition and in government, Labor has a consistent record of working in a constructive manner to ensure that measures are passed through the parliament that will increase national security and keep our community safe. However, that does not mean that Labor will blindly support any measures proposed by this government and that it claims are necessary for our national security. Instead, we will work with the government to ensure that any new measures strike the right balance between keeping Australians safe and protecting the liberties of Australians and our rights to privacy.
Labor also works hard to ensure that our national security laws are always consistent with our Constitution and never undermine the rule of law in Australia. It is, of course, the particular responsibility of the Attorney-General, the First Law Officer of this country, to ensure that the rule of law is upheld.
At paragraph 1.52 of the report, the committee says, 'in executing its scrutiny functions, the Committee takes evidence from witnesses and agencies. It may at times receive advice from the Attorney-General. Some Opposition members of the Committee expressed concern regarding the fullness of advice provided.' I now want to detail what that concern is. During the committee's inquiry into the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015, the committee heard detailed concerns about the constitutionality of the bill from several submitters, including leading constitutional lawyers and the Law Council of Australia. Noting the strength of these concerns, the committee sought assurances from the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, that the bill was constitutional. Senator Brandis refused requests to provide that legal advice, even in camera, to the members of a committee whose members are frequently entrusted with sensitive secret intelligence.
However, in an attempt to meet committee concerns, Senator Brandis wrote to me on 27 August 2015, asserting:
… the Government has received advice from the Solicitor-General, Mr Justin Gleeson SC, that, in his opinion, there is a good prospect that a majority of the High Court would reject a constitutional challenge to the core aspects of the draft Bill.
The committee viewed this statement as sufficiently important to reproduce it in paragraph 3.39 of the report on the citizenship bill, and reproduced in full the letter containing this statement as appendix D to that report. Noting the Attorney-General's assurances, the committee recommended that the bill be passed. Just to be clear, the committee recommended that the bill be passed because we relied on the Attorney-General to accurately and truthfully advise the committee about constitutional matters, particularly advice from the Solicitor-General.
Regrettably, it emerged in October 2016 that the Attorney-General had not accurately and truthfully advised the committee. The former Solicitor-General, Justin Gleeson, told the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee in October 2016 that he was not given the opportunity to advise on the final version of the citizenship bill as presented to parliament and as considered by the intelligence committee. It is clear that Senator Brandis misrepresented the advice of the Solicitor-General. The consequence of Senator Brandis's misrepresentation was to mislead the committee about a matter of great significance. After the revelation from the former Solicitor-General in December 2016, the Attorney-General was invited by the intelligence committee to make any further comment, but he declined that invitation.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security plays a vital role in ensuring that our security agencies are accountable to our elected representatives. In doing this, the committee helps to maintain public trust in those agencies. The Attorney-General of the Commonwealth should never undermine that public trust and must always act with complete candour and integrity when providing information to the committee. It is imperative that the intelligence community be able to trust advice given to it by the Attorney-General when it is considering significant legislation. Both the rule of law and our national security will be compromised if the Australian parliament is misled into passing legislation that could be struck down by the High Court. Labor members of the committee note their strong disapproval of the actions of the Attorney-General in relation to the citizenship bill and call on him to give assurances that misrepresentations to the intelligence committee of this kind will never happen again.
I commend the report to the House.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2017-2018
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (12:16): Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-18 and other appropriations bills for the budget that was recently handed down. There is a large and, unfortunately, growing group of Australians for whom the economy is a very different place to that which has been described by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister from that dispatch box. For this group of Australians, life is precarious, particularly at work. They face record low wages growth. They face record high underemployment. They cannot find the hours that they need to work to provide for their loved ones, because hours worked per person are also at record lows. Unfortunately for them and for the country, amidst all of the spin and rhetoric of this budget—all of the things that the government would like us to believe this budget is about—the economy today and the budget that the government has handed down make life for that group of precariously placed Australians much, much harder. That is the real story of the people facing part of the economy today, not the one told by the Treasurer.
Again unfortunately for this country, this is a budget which sides with the millionaires and the multinationals over middle Australia, and that is because we have a government that still clings to an idea which has been long discredited, this Thatcherite fantasy that says that if you shower largesse on the top end of town then somehow, miraculously, people on low and middle incomes in this country will benefit from that effort. That has been the approach of those opposite for as long as I have been around. It was certainly the approach that defined the first three budgets of the Abbott-Turnbull governments, the Abbott-Turnbull period. The only thing that is really different about this fourth budget is that they want Australians to believe that they have changed—that they have somehow had some big conversion and all of a sudden they believe something else. They are so ashamed that they want to continue with that $65 billion income tax cut for the top of town that they want Australians to believe that the budget is about something different. But Australians are smarter than that. They know that the leopard cannot change its spots. They know that this government will always favour the top end of town over those who work and those who struggle.
What makes this budget particularly peculiar is the gap between the rhetoric that we hear from those opposite and the reality of the budget itself. They want Australians to believe that somehow it is a budget that Labor could have handed down. That is a very flattering reflection in lots of ways. Labor has led the debate on this side of the House on important policy considerations, but no Labor budget would have $22 billion of cuts to schools, dramatic increases to university fees or $600 million cut from TAFE and apprenticeships. No Labor government would fail to take action on negative gearing and capital gains—those tax breaks for wealthy investors that put first home buyers at such a disadvantage.
Those opposite want us to believe that this is a fair budget. But no fair budget would have those cuts to family payments, to veterans health or to pensions—something like $366 a year in terms of the energy supplement, which is still in the budget as a cut for pensioners. The government took out what has become known in the insider talk of this place as the so-called 'zombie measures'. They took out some of those zombie measures from the budget, but we know from the finance minister and others that they were taken out not because the government stopped believing in harsh cuts to the most vulnerable, but because they could not get them through the Senate. The finance minister even said it was regrettable that that they could not pursue those harsh cuts to benefits for the most vulnerable people in our community.
No fair budget would hike taxes for those earning less than $87,000 at the same time as they give a tax cut for everyone earning more than $180,000. That means a millionaire gets a $16,400 a year tax cut on the same day that up to 700,000 Australians lose their penalty rates, on the same day that somebody earning $65,000 a year gets a $325 a year tax increase. No fair budget would give multinationals and banks a $65 billion tax cut at the expense of middle Australia.
The government also wants us to believe that it is an infrastructure budget, but no infrastructure budget would have this smoke and mirrors and old announcements and potential projects and the same old excuses not to get cracking on important projects such as Cross River Rail and projects right around the country. It was this approach by the government, this smoke and mirrors approach to infrastructure funding, that led Infrastructure Partnerships Australia to point to the lowest investment in infrastructure in 10 years.
More fundamentally, those opposite want us to believe that this budget is somehow about budget repair. Some of the numbers that I am about to tell the House—you do not hear a lot about these numbers, but they are there, buried in the budget papers. These are not opinions from the Labor side of the parliament; these are the facts which are in the government's own budget papers. The first one is that the deficit for the year that we are in right now, 2016-17, has tripled from the government's first budget under Joe Hockey, from $10.6 billion to $37.6 billion. The deficit for the year we are in right now has more than tripled. It is worse for the coming year. The deficit for the coming year, 2017-18, has increased more than 10-fold from Joe Hockey's first budget to the budget that the Treasurer handed down very recently. It has increased from $2.8 billion deficit in their first budget to a $29.4 billion deficit in the most recent budget—a 10-fold blowout.
Net debt has blown out by over $100 billion since they those opposite came to government. Net debt will be at record highs for another three years. Gross debt will pass half a trillion dollars for the first time in Australia's history next month. That is roughly $25,000 for each Australian man, woman and child. That is why the Treasurer snuck out the announcement that he would have to increase the gross debt cap, because it will hit $600 billion and will keep rising to well over half a trillion dollars in gross debt. Gross debt will hit $725 billion in 10 years, and it will keep on growing. It does not actually peak in the 10-year budget period. Gross debt continues to rise.
Remember, it was Malcolm Turnbull, when gross debt was expected to hit about $300 billion, who in 2009 described that as an almost inconceivable level of debt. He called it a gigantic mountain of debt. He said it was a frightening amount of debt when it was approaching $300 billion. Now we know that under this government gross debt will hit $725 billion and keep rising after that. No wonder that, when the ratings agencies reaffirmed the AAA credit rating, they kept us on negative watch. They kept Australia on negative watch because they were not convinced that the government had the capacity to arrest these blowouts in debt and deficit.
All of this is in spite of $21 billion of new taxes. They do not like to talk about that on that side of the House. $21 billion of new taxes—the price that Australians will pay for four years of chaos, division, dysfunction and debt and deficit blowouts. Those opposite also want us to believe that, in the words of the Treasurer, it is a budget for 'better days ahead'. I think the Prime Minister described it as a budget to 'make people's dreams come true'. In the short time since the budget was handed down, we have already had two measures of consumer confidence and both have plummeted. The Treasurer stands up and says that this is a budget for better days ahead. But the Australian people have examined it, held it up to the light and said, 'No, we don't think so.' Consumer confidence has plummeted on both of the key measures that were released last week.
But I think perhaps the biggest failure, the biggest gap between the rhetoric of this budget and the reality of this budget, relates to the government's performance on jobs. One of the main reasons they have changed that old slogan 'jobs and growth' to 'fairness', which Crosby Textor has told them to do, is that the record on growth and, especially, jobs, is really poor. Even in this budget—again, it is something the government does not like to talk about—the key measures of jobs and growth have been downgraded. So when they want Australians to believe they are doing an amazing job on jobs and growth, they put downgrades into the budget for all the key measures.
I think the starkest failure in this budget, compared to the budget before it, is that the Turnbull government is now expecting 100,000 fewer jobs in our economy than they were expecting just a year ago. The nerve of them to say this is a government about jobs, while they quietly downgrade their expectations for jobs in this country! Almost 100,000 fewer jobs are expected than just a year ago—no wonder we do not hear so much of that slogan anymore.
The budget is a subset of a broader problem that the government has. It is a subset of a broader reason why the government is not just failing on the politics of this budget but on economic policy more broadly; it is a policy failure as much as it is a political failure. And the policy failure stems from a misguided belief—as I mentioned before, this Thatcherite fantasy—where they think growth comes from a $65 billion tax cut for the biggest companies in this country and an income tax cut for those who need it least, those who earn more than $180,000 in the personal income taxes them. What they fail to understand—and this is the really damaging problem; it is a really unfortunate, disappointing failure on that side of the House—is that we will not get economic growth in this country while people are not earning. We will not get the demand we need in the economy—the household spending, the investment—unless we have economic growth which is inclusive, which gives people a stake in our economic success. We will not get that growth unless people are properly rewarded for the work they put in.
I was greatly heartened by the contribution by the member for Wakefield and the member for Lalor a moment ago. They talked about penalty rates and the 700,000 Australians who stand to lose up to $77 a week because the government will not protect their penalty rates. We need to make sure that work is rewarded in this country if we want to have economic growth. We will not have proper, inclusive economic growth unless we have a decent social safety net. On all three of those fronts—inclusive growth, work that is rewarded, and a decent safety net—this government is taking us in the wrong direction.
I am proud of Labor's response to the budget. I am proud that we will not ask low- and middle-income earners to pay more so that the top end of the town can pay less tax. In the finance portfolio I am pleased that, in the Leader of the Opposition's budget reply, we identified more than $1 billion in spending in this budget that we will not proceed with—including advertising campaigns and other measures in the budget—and we announced new important savings such as capping the deductions that people can claim when they manage their tax affairs. We are making sure that the one per cent of Australians who spend more than $3,000 a year on lawyers and accountants to minimise their tax cannot claim that back on their tax themselves. It is a policy that we are very proud of, which improves the budget. We are proud of our steps on tax haven transparency and further steps towards ensuring multinationals pay their fair share of tax.
We are proud to have announced over $120 billion in savings over the medium term, which demonstrate that we can have budget repair in this country, we can improve and we can address the mess that those opposite made of the budget, but we can do so in a fair way. We can do it in a way that does not ask the most vulnerable Australians to carry the can for the debt and deficit blowouts under those opposite. I am also proud that in the Leader of the Opposition's budget reply two Thursdays ago we prioritised what I think is probably the most important thing we can do if you want growth in this country, and that is to invest in the human capital of our people to make sure that we have investment in apprenticeships—that we put TAFE back at the centre of our vocational training and educational system. These are the things we should be doing if we genuinely care about growth and jobs in this country.
People would be aware, because of the history of the appropriation bills, that there has been a convention for some time that the opposition do not oppose the appropriations bills. We will be supporting the bills in the usual way—the way that people have been accustomed to since the mid-1970s. In that light—the fact that we are voting for these bills—let me finish with something else that we agree on. Those opposite have said in the last couple of weeks that budgets are about choices, and they are. Unfortunately, this budget chooses the millionaires and the multinationals over middle Australia. Only this side of the House believes in the people powered growth that we need in this country, and that begins—but does not end—with budgets that are genuinely fair not just in spin but in substance.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (12:31): It is a privilege to be able to stand up and address Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018 and, particularly, the case for it—for the substance of it, rather than, as we have unfortunately just heard, a critique indulged with spin that might make people feel good about themselves but does not address the substance. There are a number of measures within this budget that I strongly support. For instance, one of the things that perhaps slipped the headlines but is an extremely important part of the budget is that there is, essentially, a tax cut for Australia's future workforce. In the budget, the government announced that it would not be drawing down from the Future Fund. When it was announced in 2005 by then Treasurer Peter Costello, he said that the Future Fund was established to:
Fund the liabilities—
—meaning public sector pensions
we have already incurred but not yet made provision to pay for—
with the intention—
no Government will be able to draw the money out of it until it is sufficient to meet all the unfunded liabilities …
The intention was that the contributions would be made from surpluses from the 2007 budget onwards. What we know, in practice, is that, apart from additional contributions from the sale of Telstra shares, that never occurred. Costello said in his 2007 budget speech:
If you rob capital or earnings from the Future Fund, taxpayers will have to make up the difference. You are passing our bills, our obligations, from our generation to the next. This will limit their future.
He was as right then as that principle and statement are now. In this budget, the coalition has deferred drawing down from the Future Fund from 2020 until 2026. If drawn down earlier, the Future Fund would only be able to cover liabilities for the next 20-odd years. A six-year delay ensures it will mature in fund liabilities for the next century, and amounts to an effective tax cut for over a century, with the primary beneficiaries being those aged less than 20 years old today. So when I hear the pointless and needless rhetoric from the opposition leader about a war against young people, what I am not hearing is his commitment to support the measure by the government to delay drawing down from the Future Fund and that, should he be elected into government at some point in the future, they would not seek to raid the Future Fund. Because we know they have form in the past where they have sought ways to do that—whether through the principle of developing the National Broadband Network as a justification to extract money, or finding measures that may give justification to raid the Future Fund for their political benefit.
There is of course also another important measure within the budget around the instant asset write-off for small businesses. Coming from an electorate with thousands of small businesses, entrepreneurs coming together to create small businesses and invest in the future so that they cannot just take care of themselves and provide goods and services to the market place but also employ people, to create an economy built off the ingenuity and energy of people and to employ others so that they may stand on their own two feet. The continuation of the instant asset write-off is enormously beneficial for the people of Goldstein—and not just the people of Goldstein but for the people they seek to employ from within our community and from without.
Another contentious measure that has raised its head throughout the debate on the budget has been the introduction of a bank levy. I will concede that introducing a bank levy has never been my first preference, but when it comes down to the reality of how banks operate and the capacity for a levy to be introduced to reflect some of the aspects of their enjoyment of guarantees in the past which have lowered the rate at which they are able to borrow capital, particularly in comparison to smaller banks, I do not think it is an outrageous proposition. The banking levy does do something to create a level playing field between larger and smaller banks, though I think there is a case from time to time to look at how the operation of this levy operates. My personal preference is that it would not exist for a long time into the future, particularly because of its contribution towards dealing with issues around deficit and debt reduction.
There have been a lot of arguments on the political left about this budget, and of course they have been using all sorts of perpetual arguments about fairness as a justification for supporting one measure or another, often with heated rhetoric and little substance. As I said, we just heard a large chunk of that in the speech by the member for Rankin. This budget seeks to redress and rebalance some of the issues that face our country, making sure that there is proper investment in things like education and protecting those people who are most vulnerable and can do little to improve their circumstances, particularly by fully funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the consummate measures in the Medicare levy.
But this budget is only the beginning, in my opinion. It must be seen as an opportunity to refocus and refresh the discussion around the future of our country, because if you want to protect young people and their interests into the future we do need to have an honest discussion about the budget and an honest discussion about the growth of expenditure and where it is coming from. In the past, governments that have been elected have been able to focus on welfare reform to get people back to work, to privatise assets and introduce revenue into the government to pay down debt. That is not the challenge that we face today, and until we as a country take that issue seriously and understand what is driving our expenditure, not just the nature of debt and how it is created, we will not be able to hand on to future generations the type of country we have inherited. There is a lot of discussion about curbing middle-class welfare and the like, particularly from the opposition. What they invariably mean is reducing assistance to income earning families, which assists them in staying in employment and creating and building their own lives and their own Australian dream of being able to stand as much as possible on their own two feet.
At some point this country needs to have not only a very serious discussion about real growth and where it is coming from and what is driving it and how we as a country are going to deal with the challenges that come both with expenditure by the government of taxpayers' dollars but also a discussion around how we raise revenue. Discussions around revenue are not just about increasing taxes, as some of our opponents would like—it is a discussion about how we rebase the tax system that properly reflects that. What we know is that the real growth in welfare spending since the turn of the 20th century has been in assistance mostly to an ageing population. Since 1999, welfare support for an ageing population has grown from $31.9 billion to about $61.7 billion in 2016 dollars. Similarly, total health expenditure has grown from $28.7 billion to around $71.2 billion—not that all of that cost, I might add, is driven by Australia's ageing population. But, a Productivity Commission report has found that 20 per cent of a person's lifetime health expense is intensely focused at the end of a person's life.
As a society we of course need to assist those people who cannot assist themselves, but it has long been understood that supporting an ageing population will increasingly put more pressure on taxpayers and particularly a diminishing taxpayer base. The trajectory is set because the share of Australians over the age of 65 will increase from around 15 per cent of the population today to nearly 22 per cent by 2054-55. People retiring now around the age of 65 can have up to 30 or 40 years of life ahead of them. Unsurprisingly, they want security, and they should have it, particularly around government policy and programs to make sure that they can retire with both dignity and confidence in their future.
Yet, at the same time, they will receive pensions, aged care, health care and medicines during the most dependent period of their lives, through taxpayer funded support. Concurrently, the private wealth of many retirees is held in superannuation and rarely attracts income tax unless you are over the new refined thresholds that were introduced by this government—that is, unless you are extremely well off. Similarly, many pensioners pay little income tax, as their income barely exceeds the current tax-free thresholds. The 2015 Intergenerational report identifies the challenge that presents, as we have a diminishing number of people who pay tax. It identifies the increasing pressure this will put on presently younger Australians. Currently there are 4½ people of working age for every person over the age of 65. By 2054-55, it will drop to 2.7, and there will be a significant narrowing in the number of taxpayers.
That is why one of this year's most important budget measures is that everyday expenses such as health, education and welfare will be taken from revenue and not debt from 2018-19, and that the government should finally be back in surplus by 2021. The current budget will only stabilise debt. The challenge for all future governments will be to start paying back that debt and ensuring the next generations are incentivised to work.
But, at the heart of it, we have to deal with the problems around the tax system and where revenue is coming from. I spoke of this in my first speech to this parliament: we need a substantial rebasing of the tax system to recognise, firstly, that we operate in an internationally competitive environment. This is the fallacy and the absurdity of our political opponents, who cry foul at the idea that you would reduce tax for companies. We live in a world where capital and labour are mobile. Get real. Recognise that we are going to have an increasing challenge and a diminishing amount of income that can come from company tax, particularly if other countries decide to go down the path of reducing their company tax to attract investment, and with that will go jobs.
Similarly, we need a reduction in personal income tax rates, because in the end, firstly, labour, particularly skilled labour, is now mobile, and people will choose to work partly in the environments where they can seek to enjoy the most return from their effort. But, in addition to that, we know what is actually happening out there in the economy. People, particularly those people who are not on salaries working for other people, face choices. They often will go out of their way to set up company structures and trusts to minimise their tax liabilities. Of course, the response from our political opponents will be simply to dismiss this issue and say, 'Let's get rid of any structure that allows them to do it,' but all they are doing is responding to incentives.
If we want to see a situation where the government raises the revenue it needs, you need a rebasing of the tax system and a consistency across tax rates, whether it is consumption, company or personal taxes, to make sure that everybody is carrying their obligations and that all of the people who are employed out there—and there are thousands of them—as accountants and lawyers to minimise people's tax liabilities go off and find some productive purpose to grow the economy and help businesses to grow their profits and their economic opportunity, not simply to minimise their tax.
There is a very good book that I would recommend to anybody who has not had a chance to read it. I know it probably sounds a bit dull, but it is titled For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization. It is by a fellow by the name of Charles Adams, and in it he goes through the history of taxation and how it can lead to the rise and fall of societies, drive incentives within communities and economies, and deliver substantial differences in the trajectory of a nation. That is the challenge that we as a country must face: whether we are going to tax appropriately and focus on the trajectory that we want for our country, which is one that grows and builds opportunity for the future for younger Australians. I particularly note the epilogue of Adams's book, where he talks specifically about the broad themes that can be taken from the role of tax throughout history:
First is the glaring fact that all good tax systems tend to go bad. Unless restrained by the people in some effective way, governments are unable to live with a good working, moderate tax system …
Second, the most challenging problem of our age is whether or not civilization can extricate itself from its own tax self-destructiveness. If we don't address that problem, I believe our children in the next century will …
The destructiveness is not just economic, it endangers more important matters of the human spirit—
which goes to the heart of whether people can stand on their own two feet and enjoy the rewards of their efforts, but also the calling to others to be able to contribute to our society and stand on their own two feet and celebrate their efforts and endeavours. He continues:
Third, the one common denominator of all good tax systems (before they went bad) has been moderation. This principle was riven to us by the ancients as the ideal of the good life and of good government … Aristotle arranged a long list of moral qualities in triads. Virtue was a middle ground between extremes, called vices.
The essential character of what Adams analyses by looking at the whole history of taxation is that it should be simple, it should be consistent and it should be low, because that is the basis on which people will pay it. If people do pay their taxes because they see them as fair and just, as a respectful recognition of their reward and their effort, you will get people doing what they appropriately need to do. Also, they will not be distracted by creating artifices and structures that otherwise seek to advance minimising their tax obligations. But that requires reform and the sort of conversation that unfortunately we cannot have right now, because anything that involves a serious discussion around rebasing the tax system leads to the inevitable cries and shrill responses from those opposite; they cannot and do not understand how you can have a proper discussion around tax and what is in the best interests of this country.
Finally, just to summarise, a number of people have commented on this budget, particularly in relation to what they describe as self-identified conservatives and the problems they have with this budget for one reason or another. I am a liberal, and I am proud to be a liberal and always will be. One of the great follies of why I never describe myself as a conservative, though I do have conservative dimensions, is that when you describe yourself as a conservative you define yourself by what you are against, and that allows others to define the agenda and to simply temper the speed at which they get there. That is why we must always be liberal. (Time expired)
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (12:47): On 9 May the Treasurer strutted out to deliver a budget that in a mere two weeks has already slumped into a slouch. A budget that was supposed to stand tall and lift the government's standing is doing nothing of the sort. And the reason it is a slouch of a budget is that, frankly, it lacks a policy backbone and is weighed down by contradictions and a heavy load of hypocrisy.
The coalition government, who shrieked about the disaster of debt and deficit, will preside over gross debt rising to $725 billion and, in this budget, snuck in as a footnote that they would lift the debt cap to $600 billion. Things are not much better when you focus on net debt, which is set to rise to a staggering 20 per cent of GDP. It has not been that high since World War II. And it has never been that high under a Labor government. This is a budget that is jam-packed with heroic claims of future performance, such as reaching surplus in a few years off the back of a leap to three per cent wages growth, when just last week we saw official figures detailing that wages growth had reached historic lows of just 1.865 per cent. How is that leap supposed to occur? What about the observation of Fairfax's Peter Martin, who says this about government spending:
… in 2019-20, for one year only, the budget tells us that number will drop to 0.9 per cent, before bouncing back to 2.1 per cent.
That curious dip, for one year only, is enough to push down the projected 2019-20 deficit from $10.5 billion to $2.5 billion and to turn what would have been a deficit in 2020-21 into a surplus.
Amazing!
The budget is one of the principal financial documents of the Commonwealth and it is, frankly, underpinned by dodgy, politically pliable numbers. When you push through this and focus on the real numbers, you appreciate the reality of the debt and deficit disaster presided over by the coalition. There will be new record net debt for the next three years, and we will experience a deficit for the 2017-18 year which is 10 times bigger than was predicted in the coalition's first budget. As this reality is dawning on people, you can appreciate why the proud claims of the coalition simply do not stack up and why this budget reflects either laziness or an incapability to get any budget management right.
While the deficit has soared, so too has the weight of the Turnbull government's cuts, and the impact of its bad decisions have ballooned, affecting the people I represent in the electorate of Chifley. From Mount Druitt to Blacktown, families will find themselves worse off because of Malcolm Turnbull's budget. While they will pay more tax and bear a heavier burden, the nation's wealthiest two per cent are actually aided by the Turnbull government in this budget. Millionaires will get a tax cut of $16,400, while families in our area feel the pinch of this budget.
It was staggering to listen to the fake, opinion-poll-driven concern of the Treasurer on budget night, when he said:
We must choose to tackle cost of living pressures for Australians and their families.
He did not say that because he genuinely believed it. He said it because, no doubt, the $200,000 he spent on opinion polling told him to say it. It is offensive when you compare his words to the realities of his decisions. Anytime this government has a chance to make a decision to help average Australians, the Turnbull government makes decisions that actively hurt them.
Look at what this budget does. A family on $65,000 will pay $325 more in tax in two years time. Changes to family tax benefit A supplement will mean that a family with an income of $80,000 will lose nearly $730 per child. Axing the energy supplement to new pensioners, people with disability, carers and Newstart recipients will mean a cut of $14 a fortnight to single pensioners or $365 a year; couple pensioners will lose just over $21 fortnight or roughly $550 a year. Beyond this budget, the Turnbull government hardly lifts a finger to lift the wages of low-income earners—or it champions cuts to take-home pay, by supporting penalty rate cuts which mean 10,000 workers, from Mount Druitt through to Blacktown, could lose $77 a week from their pay on 1 July, the very same day that millionaires get a $16,400 tax cut.
As to schools, the Turnbull government budget has slapped schools across Australia with a $22 billion cut. Parents across the Chifley electorate should burn with rage when they realise that $22 billion of funds that should be invested in their children's education is being shovelled into a $65 billion cut in big business's taxes. The original Gonski report—the fair dinkum Gonski report—identified how education investment could bust clusters of disadvantage. Yet when I look at the very neighbourhoods where I know these clusters exist, the harsh reality is this: millions of dollars are being denied to those young Australians and their opportunities in life crippled and hampered by a government that could not care less.
Of the roughly $900 million cut from New South Wales schools, public schools in Chifley will suffer cuts of $31 million over the next two years. Over two years, Chifley College Mount Druitt Campus gets $5.9 million less; Plumpton High School, $1.38 million less; Doonside Technology High School, $1.36 million less; Hebersham Public School, $1.35 million less; Bidwill Public School, $1.14 million less; Lethbridge Park Public School, where the member for Barton once taught, will get $1.13 million less because of this funding deal. Rooty Hill High School will get $1.2 million less. All of those areas will suffer cuts to education funding. We hear often from those on the other side the claim of intergenerational theft. This is intergenerational theft—ripping away money that would have helped so many young people in our area get a better education and, hence, a better start to life.
As to TAFE, there were budget cuts of $600 million more from TAFE and vocational education and training over four years. Locals trying to pick up valuable skills at Mount Druitt TAFE will inevitably feel the cuts.
For universities, up jumped the student costs by thousands of dollars. University funding was cut by $4 billion. At a time when we are supposed to be lifting the skills of future generations, we are underinvesting in the development of those skills.
On Medicare: the Turnbull government's delay in reversing their freeze on Medicare by three years puts bulk-billing in our area at risk. In Western Sydney, bulk-billing is relied upon by the vast majority of doctors and patients. Nearly 99 per cent of doctors in the Mount Druitt area bulk-bill. If they have to start passing on these costs, charging more for visits, families will bear the brunt of this freeze every time they visit a doctor.
As to hospitals, the current low levels of hospital funding were not boosted in this budget. State governments have closed down wards—for example, the cardiac ward in Mt Druitt. In an area where heart disease is a massive concern, the state government shut down the cardiac ward. No wonder when you see the cuts to hospital funding that you see hospitals in our area doing that—denying a vital service to people. This budget enables more of the same—residents having to sit through long waits in emergency rooms and long wait times for elective surgery in both Mt Druitt and Blacktown.
As I said earlier, this budget lacks a policy backbone, and the failure of the Turnbull government to deal seriously with housing affordability is a classic example. I would be stunned if there was an ability of the general public to point to just one thing ushered in by this budget that will make it easier for first home buyers to get their first home—just one thing. A budget that said that housing affordability would be a central part of it is suddenly unable to deliver and refusing to tackle the hard task of pulling apart the distortion created by taxation concessions like negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts—again, no backbone in this budget.
On jobs, vital not only to Western Sydney but obviously to communities across the country, the Turnbull government's own budget papers show their inability to grow the economy and help create jobs. Nearly 100,000 fewer jobs are forecast for this year compared to the last budget. Their own numbers show up their claims of economic growth. This year's budget forecasts higher unemployment, lower wages and lower GDP. Just last week we saw the new labour stats announced. While more people are getting into work right now, there is a very slippery undercurrent. There are fewer and fewer full-time jobs available and fewer work hours to go around. People are feeling the pinch, but nothing in this budget reveals anything—not even a hint—of a jobs plan.
The government does a poor job of creating jobs and then those who cannot find jobs are placed into failing jobs programs. The Turnbull government said, for instance, in this budget that they had refocused Work for the Dole, but there is no detail around how they will improve that failing program. Remember: almost 90 per cent of Work for the Dole participants are not in full-time work three months after finishing the program—appalling!
The government announced the expansion of the National Work Experience Program but they have not even finished or published a review into the program, explaining why it is meeting expectations or not meeting expectations. There is little detail about how much this expansion would cost and no justification for its expansion or an expectation of what success would be triggered by. Some new incentives will be provided to jobactive and transitional work providers as well as the National Work Experience Program post providers, but, again, there is very little detail around cost.
The government's approach to jobs is all talk. They care more about tabloid headlines than actually helping find Australians work. The latest thought bubble was the one that was ushered in by last year's budget, the Youth Jobs PaTH intern program. Last week, the employment minister admitted that just over 100 interns have signed on to this program since it started in April. The harsh reality is that the government have to get 2,500 interns a month to meet their 30,000 annual target. Australia's labour market is in a weakened state, with wages growth at record lows and underemployment at record highs. But the Turnbull government have still not been able to explain how putting 120,000 interns into a shaky jobs market will not displace jobs that already go to paid employees.
I heard firsthand the impact of a weak labour market when I visited Western Australia, where the unemployment rate remains above the national average. There, the Turnbull government have watched the state's employment services perform poorly compared to the rest of the country, but what have they done about it? They have not lifted a finger. In six Western Australian employment regions, the majority of jobactive provider sites scored only one or two stars out of five in the Department of Employment's own evaluation system. Despite this poor performance, they have not made any changes. Jobseekers are still being left out to dry. They need to get serious about helping people find work.
On the digital economy—another portfolio area that I focus on—the Turnbull government have made cuts to education, skills and universities and are continuing to ignore the investment required to grow our digital economy. Start-ups feel like they have been abandoned by a Prime Minister who told us last year that it was an exciting time to be alive and agile. As the CEO of StartupAUS, Alex McCauley, summed up this budget:
Startups and entrepreneurs, once seen as the heart of the `Ideas Boom' and the government's economic agenda, were not mentioned in the Treasurer's speech at all.
We need a focus on their work. We need a stronger, more inclusive approach to advancing the innovation agenda in Australia to plan ahead for those who will be affected by technological change and automation. In some cases, for example, manufacturing might see automation affect 50 per cent of the jobs that are performed there. Fast food, the generator of entry-level jobs for young and mature workers alike, could see 60 per cent automation. We need to be doing the work now to build the skills of future generations of people, to ensure that there is an effective transition through that period and that people are looked after. We cannot afford to drop the case for innovation as has been seen by this government. And we certainly cannot afford to drop this in regional areas.
I noticed last week that the Turnbull government had sneakily pulled the handbrake on a $23 million program to help fund the set-up of regional incubators to start new businesses in our regions. During this program pause, which is simply Canberraspeak for a future cut to this program, it will be interesting to see what gets announced. Great things are happening—for example, Runway Geelong and Silicon Paddock, initiatives that are occurring outside the cities to generate new enterprises and new jobs. And the support, right at the time it is needed, is being pulled by this government. It is unacceptable, particularly for regional Australia, to have that impact on them.
In the meantime we see stuff-up after stuff-up in digital transformation by this government, which has announced that it is spending not $5 billion that it inherited when it came into office but $10 billion right now—$10 billion on ICT, with no explanation about how the government is spending the money wisely, while at the same time cutting funds to education, cutting funds to innovation. Again, it is simply unacceptable to see that ushered in by this budget. As I said, it is a budget that started to walk tall but is now in a slouch. It lacks backbone, it lacks discipline, it lacks focus and, importantly, the people of Australia are paying for that.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (13:02): I am very pleased to see that there is a very large cohort of opposition members here in the chamber who came especially to listen to my speech on these appropriation bills. I thank you. Tonight is the 75th anniversary of the famous speech by Sir Robert Menzies known as The Forgotten People. I would like to quote a few words directly from it. Menzies talked about the people he represented in parliament: the salary earners, the shopkeepers, the skilled artisans, professional men and women, farmers and so on. He said:
These are, in the political and economic sense, the middle class. They are for the most part unorganised and unself-conscious. They are envied by those whose benefits are largely obtained by taxing them.
I would advise every Australian to take the opportunity to read in full that speech of Sir Robert Menzies. He concludes with the words:
Individual enterprise must drive us forward. …
But what really happens to us will depend on how many people we have who are of the great and sober and dynamic middle-class - the strivers, the planners, the ambitious ones. We shall destroy them at our peril.
Sir Robert Menzies gave a warning in that speech. He warned about those who sought to divide the Australian people into classes. He talked about:
our greatest political disease - the disease of thinking that the community is divided into the relatively rich and the relatively idle, and the laborious poor, and that every social and political controversy can be resolved into the question: What side are you on?
The other warning he gave was that 'to discourage ambition, to envy success' are things that we must avoid. He also said:
Now, the last thing that I would want to do is to commence or take part in a false war of this kind. In a country like Australia the class war must always be a false war.
Sadly, that brings me to the speech on the appropriation bill by the opposition leader. It was nothing other than class warfare rhetoric. Half a dozen times, he made derogatory referral to so-called millionaires. But it seems that he defines anyone who earns over $87,000 as a millionaire. What is really concerning, when you look at the details of his speech, is how he is actually encouraging class warfare with false statements.
I will quote the opposition leader's speech:
A Labor budget would stand up for middle-class and working-class families, instead of taking their money in raised taxes and giving it to millionaires …
He went on in another part of his speech to say that the coalition's budget 'goes out of its way to give taxpayer money to millionaires'. In another part he talks about taking money from the middle-class and spending it on millionaires. I am at a complete loss about how and where the government is taking money from one sector of the community and giving it to millionaires. This is just completely and utterly false!
What the opposition leader was referring to was the two per cent temporary tax increase in the marginal tax rate for those above $180,000. Employing that tax on them is simply confiscating money earned and created by those people. That money does not belong to the government. This is what we see from the Labor Party, time after time. They seem to think that the wealth of the people, created in this country by hardworking Australians, belongs to the government. It belongs to the people who earned that wealth. And if they want to take that wealth from them they have to admit that they are confiscating their money. They are taking money from them to be redistributed. They are not taking money from others and giving it to so-called millionaires.
That is why the speech by the opposition leader was so recklessly dangerous, with its false class warfare rhetoric. It gives us a window into what a future Labor government would be like. They would give us uncompetitive rates of company tax. They would give us an uncompetitive personal marginal rate of tax and they would give us uncompetitive energy prices that would deter economic growth in this nation. We know that class warfare has always been the mortal enemy of economic growth and jobs. Let's just have a look at a few of these things.
Firstly, the opposition leader's speech also referred to Paul Keating—in praise. He said:
Bob Hawke and Paul Keating changed Australia from industrial museum to a modern, outward looking, competitive economy.
What has Paul Keating had to say about Labor's plans? It is interesting: he actually slammed a 49½ per cent highest marginal tax rate as a tax gouge. He said—and I am happy to quote Paul Keating:
I believe the top rate of tax in Australia should be no higher than 39 per cent at the most.
He talked about what Labor's plans were for 49½ per cent and he described them as too punitive. He said that it is at a level where the state is confiscating almost half of people's income. And, although I hate to say it, I must admit that on this subject Paul Keating is exactly right. If we have a top marginal tax rate in this country set at 49½ per cent for those above $180,000, it means that once you get to that level of income then 50 per cent of every single extra dollar that you earn goes to the government. And with what you have left, what you spend, you must also then account for a 10 per cent GST, so that more than half of the extra money that you earn goes to the government in higher rates of tax. This is a disincentive on the job creators and wealth creators of this nation.
We only have to look at how this rate compares internationally. We know the global average of the top rate of marginal tax around the world is 33 per cent. That is exactly what it is in New Zealand. In the US it is 39.6, in India it is 35, in Hong Kong it is 15 and in Singapore it is 22. Where those marginal tax rates are slightly higher, they are set at greater multiple levels of average income. We set our highest rate of marginal tax at 2.2 times the level of average income. In comparison, in Switzerland it is 3.5 and in the United Kingdom it is 4.1—4.1 times average income until you reach the highest level of marginal tax. In Canada it is 4.3 and in the US it is eight times the average income. Yet ours is 2.2. In an economy where Australian citizens have a greater opportunity to travel and to work around the world, Australia cannot simply have the prosperity we need and the wealth creation we need if we are to have a 49½ per cent highest rate of marginal tax cutting in at 2.2 times the average income.
We have not only an uncompetitive rate of marginal tax but an uncompetitive rate of company tax. Capital has never been more mobile. If those on the opposition side think we can maintain the standard of living and investments we need when the US cuts their corporate tax rate to 15 and when the UK's rate is 20 they are fooling themselves, but it does not fit their class warfare rhetoric to say so. At the very minimum, we need to reduce the company rate of tax in this nation to 25 per cent for all companies. If we think we can get away with that rate of 30 per cent when all other nations are lowering it, we are fooling ourselves.
Then it comes to how we would see under a Labor government uncompetitive energy prices. There was a white paper in 2004 which I came across. It talked about Australia's competitive advantage in energy. It said:
Access to low-cost reliable energy is a source of competitive advantage for Australia. This low cost is driven by ready access to relatively inexpensive sources of energy, especially coal.
It goes on:
Australia enjoys some of the lowest stationary energy prices in the developed world. These prices have been an important factor in Australia’s national prosperity, underpinning energy-intensive industry and providing cheap reliable energy to businesses and households.
That is what has underwritten the wealth of our nation, but the policies of the Labor party have sacrificed Australia's competitive advantage in industry. To think that we can have a modern industrial base and high paying jobs and that we can create wealth and attract investment around the world if we generate 50 per cent of our electricity from wind turbines is one of the most dangerous fallacies out there in our country today.
Dr Leigh interjecting—
Mr CRAIG KELLY: It is a dangerous fallacy, and the member sitting at the desk knows that. Perhaps amongst all the members of the Labor Party, he most understands the importance of having industry that is internationally competitive. We have taken energy prices in this country from the lowest in the OECD to one of the highest. Only the renewable energy king, Germany, has higher electricity prices than this nation.
That also brings me to the comments made by the member for Port Adelaide, who, in an interview on ABC—where else?—recently said:
The demand for thermal coal exports around the world is in rapid decline … Indeed, the demand for thermal coal exports from Australia is actually in decline …
I thought that was a bit strange. I thought, 'Maybe the member for Port Adelaide knows more about thermal coal exports than everyone else does.' So I went and just had a look at a few things to see how accurate he was. Firstly, a report published by no less than the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, hardly friends of the coal industry, says that currently around the world there are 842,000 megawatts of coal-fired capacity under construction. I will say that again: 842,000. Take into account that Hazelwood was a 1,600-megawatt power station. Around the world now, under active development, there are the equivalent of not 10, 50 or 100 but 542 power stations equivalent to Hazelwood. They are under active development today. Yet we have the member for Melbourne saying that thermal coal exports are in decline, so I thought I would go and have a look at the exact figures. The best place to have a look at those figures is some commentary by the coal industry themselves. They said:
The value of Australia's thermal coal exports is expected to grow by 28 per cent in 2016-17 and total $19 billion.
That is according to official statistics. Hang on. There is expected to be a 28 per cent increase, to $19 billion, and we have the member for Port Adelaide saying it is in rapid decline. Something here does not add up.
So I went further to see what information I could find. There is the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science—trust the science. What do they say about Australia's thermal coal exports? Their latest report, the Resources and energy quarterly from March 2017, says:
The outlook for growth in Australia's thermal coal exports is positive over the medium term. Significant gains in export values are expected in the short term … Moderate increases in thermal coal export volumes are expected to offset … resulting in strong export earnings. Australia's thermal coal export volumes are forecast to increase …
Where does the member for Port Adelaide get this? I think that the Australian public deserve to have the member for Port Adelaide come into this chamber and admit that he misled them and was completely wrong on thermal coal exports around the world. If we are to have debates on these issues, we have to be debating on facts, not falsehoods propagated by the member for Port Adelaide. (Time expired)
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (13:17): In considering any budget that comes down, it is worth saying a few words about the economic circumstances in which it is received. Today in Australia we have record underemployment, fewer hours worked per Australian than ever before, higher rates of casualisation and insecure work and record slow wages growth. We have inequality at a 75-year high, homeownership at a 60-year low and incarceration at a 100-year high. And we have a government which came to office driving debt trucks around the country and now having increased the deficit tenfold and increased debt by $4,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia. Interest on government debt costs every Australian nearly $500 a year. That is the debt blowout we have seen since the government came to office.
I am indebted to the member for Rankin, who notes in an opinion piece in the Huffington Post today that, despite spruiking $75 billion in infrastructure investment over the next decade, the government's budget papers actually show that funding for infrastructure has been slashed, leaving Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, an independent expert body, slamming the budget and saying it 'sees infrastructure funding at its lowest level in more than 10 years'. So, while the government is talking about better days ahead and claiming to do something on housing affordability, in fact this is a budget that fails the job test, fails the Medicare test and fails the fairness test. The zombies are still alive. Medicare is still in the freezer for years.
We have heard from the previous speaker a suggestion that taxation is theft, but apparently that only applies when you are taxing millionaires. If you are proposing to put up taxes on the local plumber, cashier or cleaner, that is not theft at all! No, that is the government's money to take away from them! So, when the government raises the Medicare levy by 0.5 per cent on workers on average wages, a measure opposed by those of us on this side of the House, I am not going to hear anyone on the other side of the House claiming that tax is theft. It is only theft if you are taking it from millionaires!
We have heard also this guff from those on the other side that the personal income tax scales are now egregiously unfair if we leave them where they are on 1 July compared to where they are on 30 June, that if we leave the top marginal tax rate where it has been for two years then apparently Australia will fall into a terrible time of ruin. The member opposite repeated the comment of the Treasurer, saying that Labor will have you working one day for yourself and one day for the government. I have a couple of concerns about that. First of all, the Treasurer of Australia seems not to understand the difference between marginal and average tax rates. Also, the Treasurer of Australia seems to be eliding a little between his proposal and ours. Let's be clear. Labor's proposal, at the top marginal rate, would have a day's work for the taxpayer and 23 hours 46 minutes work for the government. The Liberal Party proposal has a day's work for the taxpayer and 22 hours 48 minutes work with the government. It does not sound like such a big difference when you put it that way, and that of course is because 49.5 per cent and 47.5 per cent are only two percentage points apart.
From this government, we have a proposal that someone on $1 million should have a tax cut of $16,400, while someone earning $65,000 will pay $325 more tax in two year's time. Meanwhile, someone working on Sunday, 2 July—as so many Australians around the country will do—will be earning weekend penalty rates. According to the analysis, they could lose up to $77 a week—the day after a millionaire has begun enjoying the fruits of their $16,400 tax cut, the day after a bank CEO has begun enjoying the fruits of their $170,000 tax cut coming to them under this government.
Members opposite have also spoken about company tax. One statistic you will never hear from them is where Australia compares to the G20, the world's 20 largest economies. If you listen to their rhetoric, you might imagine that Australia's company tax rate puts us near the top of that pack. In fact, according to the United States Congressional Budget Office's report conducted in March this year, Australia is in the middle of the G20 pack for our company tax rate. On top of that, we have dividend invitation, which gives back about one-third of the revenue. That means a company tax rate of 30 per cent, with imputation, raises about as much for the government as a company tax rate of 20 per cent without imputation—another fact you will not hear from those opposite.
And then we have the bank levy. When Labor proposed a bank levy one-tenth of the size of the one that is proposed by the government, the then Treasurer Hockey said, 'If they do this just before an election, imagine what they will do if they win.' Well, Australians do not have to imagine that because, as history records, the Liberals won the 2013 election. They do not have to imagine what a Liberal bank levy would look like, because they have one in front of them now—well, they will have if it ever comes out of secrecy. We know that a Liberal Party bank levy does not involve any consultation with anyone. In contrast to the proposal put forward by Labor in 2013, which followed a letter written by Reserve Bank Governor Glenn Stevens as head of the Council of Financial Regulators, this bank levy has no relationship to a financial stability fund. Labor acted on the advice of the head of the Council of Financial Regulators, a group including the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Treasury. We acted on their proposal to put in place a bank levy much more modest than the current one and to allow the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to collect the money and put it into a financial stability fund.
By contrast, we have seen from the government no prior debate of this measure and we have seen no prior calling for it by expert bodies. It stands in contrast, too, with the British bank levy where there was around seven months of consultation allowed between the release of the consultation paper and the legislation passing the parliament, and in which long-term debt was explicitly exempted in an attempt to change the behaviour of the banks. This Treasurer is incapable of making a clear economic argument, which is why he has merely made political arguments for his bank levy and it is why he is now incapable of answering simple questions, such as why the levy does not apply to foreign banks.
We on this side of the House have a very different set of proposals. We have put forward a very clear set of packages aimed at closing debt deduction loopholes, which adds more than $5 billion to the budget bottom line over the medium term. It continues Labor's activism on multinational tax avoidance, including legislation passed during the last Labor government, the Tax Laws Amendment (Cross-Border Transfer Pricing) Bill (No. 1) 2012, which was integral to the recent Australian Taxation Office victory over Chevron. I mention that bill because the Liberals voted against it. Had the Liberals had their way in this parliament, the Chevron decision would not have been possible in the way in which it took place. So Labor continues to lead on debt deduction loopholes while those opposite continue to attend industry conferences and happily tell the big end of town that their loopholes are safe while there is a coalition government in charge, because they will not close the debt deduction loopholes like those that have been used by big firms around the world in order to avoid paying their fair share.
In his budget reply, Bill Shorten announced a package of measures designed to tackle tax havens. Tax havens hold trillions of dollars of the world's financial wealth. On one estimate, one-tenth of all of the world's financial wealth is held in tax havens such as the Cayman Islands, Panama and the British Virgin Islands. These islands, these 'treasure islands', as they have been referred to by Nicholas Shaxson, account for billions of dollars of lost taxes every year. As ATO Commissioner Chris Jordan recently noted:
Many of these matters involve deliberate tax evasion, often using overseas tax havens or complex corporate structures to avoid detection and recovery.
Yet the Turnbull government has shirked every opportunity to clamp down on tax havens. Labor will take a very different approach. We have announced the public reporting of country-by-country reports. This is high-level tax information about where and how much tax was paid by companies whose turnover exceeds a billion dollars globally. The reporting of this information is vital to ensure that we have transparency to see where firms pay their tax. The Senate Economics References Committee's report entitled Corporate tax avoidance part 1: you cannot tax what you cannot see made this a clear recommendation. I commend in particular senators Dastyari and Ketter for their hard work on that committee. Public disclosure allows other businesses, shareholders, civil society, academics and journalists to ensure that the big companies are paying their fair share.
Labor has announced a package of reforms on whistleblower protection and incentives. In our last term of government, we extended whistleblower protections in the public sector, and this now does so in the private sector, where it leads to an increase in the tax paid. It allows whistleblowers to collect a share of the penalty collected, capped at $250,000 or one per cent of the penalty figure, whichever is higher, and goes well beyond the government's proposals announced in last year's budget. Measures of this kind—these reward and incentive measures—exist already in Britain and in the United States in the form of the False Claims Act, and they sit alongside appropriate protection for whistleblowers.
Labor will put in place mandatory reporting of material tax risk if companies have tax haven exposure. The tax office would issue guidance on the types of activity and the detail that businesses are required to disclose. A list of tax haven jurisdictions would be of a similar design to the European Union's 'black list' and might well include jurisdictions such as Guernsey, Monaco, Mauritius, Liberia, the Maldives, the Marshall Islands, the Bahamas, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands.
Labor have announced that we would provide public reporting of AUSTRAC data—that is the international funds transfer instructions for every calendar-year.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate maybe resumed at a later hour and the member for Fenner will be able to continue his contribution at that time.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Kingsford Smith E lectorate: St Anthony of Padua C hurch
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (13:30): On 12 August 1917 Sydney's Catholic Archbishop Michael Kelly laid a foundation stone for a new church on a block of land on the top of the hill at Arden Street, overlooking what was then called Little Coogee, now known as Clovelly. Yesterday I was pleased to join hundreds of local parishioners and students with the current Archbishop of the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, the Most Reverend Anthony Fisher, to celebrate the Centenary of the St Anthony of Padua church and parish in Clovelly. The area now known as Clovelly was originally part of the Franciscan district administered from Waverley, where the Franciscan community was established from Ireland in 1879. The church, after the foundation stone was laid, was quickly up and running, so it is appropriate that the parish is named after a Franciscan saint who was one of the most quickly canonised saints in recent church history. Shortly after the church was established the Josephite sisters established St Anthony's school next door and began teaching, in January 1918.
Yesterday clerical, civic, community and school leaders and parents and students came together to celebrate mass and launch a new era for the church. I congratulate the parish priest, Father Pawel Kopczynski, Kim White and staff from the school, and the organising committee—David Cunningham from the P&F, Richard Haddock and Airlie McHatton. (Time expired)
Forrest Electorate: Margaret River Wine Exports
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (13:31): The first dedicated Margaret River wines retail and wholesale outlet opened in China last month. This is believed to be a world first for a wine region—to have its own dedicated store in another country—and there are 10 more planned with many more over the years ahead. It is a wonderful initiative for the 40 wineries involved. As members from all sides of the chamber will know, the Margaret River region is home to some of the finest wines in the world, with people travelling far and wide to taste wines from our internationally renowned region. Now the wines will be directly available to customers in China—brands such as Watershed Wines, Cape Grace, Flametree, Wills Domain, Happs, Deep Woods, Churchview Estate, Hay Shed Hill, McHenry Hohnen, Forester, Edwards, Amelia Park, Arlewood, Ashbrook and Woodlands—driven in partnership with the iconic Watershed Premium Wines, as I mentioned.
This arrangement was nine months in the making and I congratulate everyone involved, including Geoff Barrett, from Watershed Wines, and the Margaret River Busselton Tourism Association. The $9.7 million I secured to upgrade the Busselton-Margaret River Regional Airport to international standard and freight is transformative for the South West. This will facilitate these exports of wine from our region, and our free trade agreements with China, South Korea, Japan and Singapore will be front and centre for all of those businesses in my part of the south-west of Western Australia.
Blaxland Electorate: Employment
Mr CLARE (Blaxland) (13:33): This Thursday in Bankstown there will be a jobs expo. This is a very simple idea. It brings together employers who have jobs and unemployed people who are looking for a job—it will put them in the one room to help fill those jobs. It is like a jobs supermarket. Is a very simple idea, and it is an idea that works. It is what we did during the global financial crisis. I was Parliamentary Secretary for Employment at the time, and we held 29 of these jobs expos across the country in areas that had been hardest hit by the GFC. As I said, it was a simple idea and it worked. We managed to help more than 12,000 people find a job through this very simple, basic, commonsense process. We also kept these jobs expos going after the GFC ended.
Unfortunately, one of the first decisions that the Abbott government made was to abandon this exercise. I use this opportunity to encourage Malcolm Turnbull to bring these jobs expos back. Fortunately, Canterbury Bankstown Council has continued to run jobs expos, after they were abandoned by this government, and they are now running their third jobs expo. So, if you live in Western Sydney and you are looking for a job, get down to Bankstown Library this Thursday between 9.30 am and 2.30 pm. There will be more than 1,000 jobs on offer and one of them could be the job you have been looking for.
Shailer Park State High School
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (13:35): It is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak about the success of one of Forde's great public schools. Shailer Park State High School is one of Logan's stand-out schools for significant improvements in all five NAPLAN areas. Over the past two years, Shailer Park State High has registered significant improvements across the five NAPLAN areas of measurement, and in part that is due to the great work of Principal Troy Ascott. These improvements include significant gains in year 9 writing, despite an overall state and national trend of declining results. Over the past two years, Shailer Park State High's gains have included 41 points for reading, 68 points for writing, 37 points for spelling, 56 points for grammar and punctuation and 30 points for numeracy. This places Shailer Park State High well above neighbouring private schools. As well as the outstanding NAPLAN improvements, Shailer Park State High School has seen the number of their students entering university rise from 28 per cent to 46 per cent in 2016, placing them well above the Logan and Beaudesert averages.
As a proud supporter of Shailer Park State High and their outstanding NAPLAN improvements, I think it shows the school's commitment, perseverance and inspiration. The hardworking teachers, support staff and leadership team have worked very diligently and very hard to achieve these results, and I wish them all the best for the future.
National Indigenous Youth Parliament 2017
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (13:36): This week I had the honour of welcoming not one but two representatives from my electorate who have been selected to attend the National Indigenous Youth Parliament. They are 19-year-old Ashleigh Darrie from Encounter Bay and 20-year-old Kaitlin Purcell from Strathalbyn. Ashleigh and Kaitlin are among 50 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people who have been selected by the Australian Electoral Commission for this week-long leadership program.
Kaitlin is an Indigenous trainee with SA Police, and she is looking forward to becoming a community constable. Kaitlin is also very passionate about AFL, both playing and coaching many of the women's teams.
I met Ashleigh in January when she collected the Young Citizen of the Year award at the Victor Harbour Australia Day celebrations. Ashleigh started as a trainee with the Alexandrina Council under a youth program aimed at tackling regional unemployment. She quickly became a role model in the program, mentoring and inducting other trainees.
Both young women are exceptional young leaders in our community, and I am so very proud to welcome Ashleigh and Kaitlin to Canberra. I know you both will learn so much over this next week, and I know you will make our Mayo community very, very proud. My congratulations to both of the young women.
Ride Against Drugs
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (13:38): Today I would like to speak about the Ride Against Drugs group operating in my electorate and the great work that they do for the youth in Bonner. I met with the co-founder and director, Max Cooper, to hear all about the RAD movement. Max and his partner, Tracy, founded the group in 1996, with the aim of creating a community of young BMX, freestyle and dirt trail riders and skaters who embody the drug-free message and lead by example. RAD has come a long way since 1996, enlisting thousands of program recruits, sponsors and mentors in many parts of Australia.
I was honoured to be able to recognise one of the local riders as an outstanding student role model within our community, as part of my Bonner Volunteer Awards for 2016. Fifteen-year-old Zac Pankhurst was awarded the volunteer student award for his commitment to being an anti-drug ambassador for local youth.
We all know that, when people are involved with drugs at a young age, it is often harder to break the cycle, which is why the Ride Against Drugs movement is so very important. RAD deserves congratulations for the tireless work they do within my community, all delivered purely on donations and money raised. For anyone who would like to sign up or get involved, this Sunday RAD is holding a RAD Jam at 10 am at the Lota Skate Park in Bonner, complete with free barbecue for the riders and families. I wish them all the very best in the future.
Bass Electorate: Launceston Community Legal Centre
Mr HART (Bass) (13:39): I rise today to congratulate the Launceston Community Legal Centre for its success in Volunteering Tasmania's recent Tasmanian Volunteering Awards for 2017. It was my very great pleasure to nominate the Launceston Community Legal Centre to be recognised for its role in advocating for the most disadvantaged in our community through its successful Legal Literacy program.
The Launceston Community Legal Centre seeks volunteers for its services through Volunteering Tasmania's website. As part of the selection process, volunteers receive four days of initial training over a four-week period. The program run by the Launceston Community Legal Centre has a high satisfaction rate, and a particularly high retention rate. Volunteers are encouraged to mentor, buddy and support each other in their work.
The Legal Literacy program uses local, non-legally-trained volunteers to help other members of their community to complete documents and forms of all kinds correctly. The volunteers also write letters, identify legal needs and refer people to timely legal assistance as required. Since the legal literacy service was established, volunteers have helped over 2,000 people.
There are 54 active Legal Literacy program volunteers in nine locations across the north-east of Tasmania. Legal Literacy program volunteers bridge the gap between the traditional areas of law, welfare, health, education and community. Practical assistance is the result, and the Bass community benefits from an innovative program.
Fisher Electorate: Small Business
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (13:41): The Turnbull coalition government is committed to supporting Australian small businesses. Last week, the Minister for Small Business came to visit my electorate of Fisher to talk to local business leaders about what this government is doing to support them.
Together, we visited a fantastic Caloundra company, Australian Off Road. From humble beginnings in their home, Steve and Rhonda Budden's enterprise now employs over 70 local tradespeople and has an eight-month waiting list for their fantastic off-road caravans.
The minister also joined me, along with representatives of the Australian Tax Office and the small business ombudsman, to host a Sunshine Coast small business Q&A. Attendees included Dr Evan Jones of Golden Beach Medical Centre, who told us about some of the pressures operating on GPs and local pharmacies. Peter Duffy—my good friend Peter—from the Knowles Group had many interesting suggestions, with 'interesting' being the operative word, for streamlining the taxation system. And Tony Gill of Art on Cairncross asked about the importance of diversifying the Sunshine Coast's economy and encouraging new hubs for other types of businesses. Other attendees with valuable contributions to make included Frank Cassells of Cassells Chartered Accountants; Gerry and Liz Bell of the Bell Group; and Tracey Schultz from the Skills Shack.
I want to thank the minister for visiting Fisher and for giving us his insights, and all the local business owners who came along.
Brand Electorate: Rockingham Rams Football Club
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (13:42): Last Friday night I had the very great honour of presenting the first female football team for the Rockingham Rams Football Club with their inaugural team jerseys. I am so grateful for the opportunity the Rockingham Rams have given me to help support this fantastic group of young women as they start a new page in the history books of this great footy club that was established over 60 years ago in Rockingham in 1954.
Two of my brothers, John and Matthew, both played for Rockingham many years ago. If the opportunity had been there I would love to have played footy instead of just being the little sister who had to fetch the footy from behind the goals or around the boundary, all the time watching my brothers play and my dad being the goal umpire. I am so happy that times have changed—very happy that times have changed—and that young girls and women now get to participate fully in Australian Rules football, which is, as we know, the greatest game on this earth!
Under the leadership of captain Dakota DalBello and vice captain Katy Millar, the team fought hard in the wind, rain and cold that whipped around Anniversary Park last Friday. Unfortunately, Rockingham went down by a single point to the tough country team Pinjarra. It was a hard-fought game played in the best possible spirit, if not the best weather. It was a strong defensive game in the back line, which kept the Rams in the hunt for the whole game.
I would like to thank the club president, Michael Holland; the inaugural coach, Glen Millar; and the assistant coaches, Andrew and Tia, who are bright young people working hard for their club. I would also like to thank the hardworking manager, Bec, and all the volunteers on which the club depends. They have been so welcoming to me and I cannot wait to get along to another game. Go Rams!
Robertson Electorate: Budget
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (13:44): Over the past week I have heard from hundreds of hardworking families and businesses on the Central Coast, to get their thoughts on the budget.
Many locals stopped at an Ettalong listening post to ask us about our $45 billion investment into a new Central Coast medical school and research institute, and also our plan to address the GP shortage on the peninsula. The Treasurer came to the Central Coast and spoke to around 100 local businesses about the benefits of the budget for small businesses in West Gosford. I want to say thank you to Central Coast New South Wales Business Chamber Regional Manager Dan Farmer, Gosford/Erina and Coastal Chamber of Commerce and Industry President Ali Vidler, Peninsula Chamber of Commerce President Matthew Wales and the team at the entertainment grounds for hosting this luncheon. We also met 300 community leaders and locals at an afternoon tea with Treasurer Morrison, where there was a great response to our action towards fully funding the NDIS, fixing local roads and getting a fairer deal from our banks. Later at Gosford, at the Central Cost Leagues Club, the Treasurer answered questions on Paul Murray LIVE on Sky News.
This government is listening and acting, in contrast to members opposite and to Labor, who, in their latest media release, continue to talk down the Central Coast with disgraceful and misleading scare campaigns. The fact is that Labor are job wreckers on the Central Coast, opposing major initiatives like the 600 jobs we are delivering into Gosford and recently failing to even acknowledge the medical school and research institute. Labor just wants to complain, while we are delivering. (Time expired)
Oxley Electorate Spirit of Anzac Award
Mr DICK (Oxley) (13:45): Earlier this year I announced to the House the inaugural Oxley Electorate Spirit of Anzac Award, in partnership with our local RSL sub-branches. This was a competition open to students in year 11, who were invited to submit a short essay, poem or piece of artwork on what the spirit of Anzac meant to them. It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge the recipient of this award, from Centenary State High School: Sam Wallace and his mum, Narelle, are with us today in the gallery.
After receiving entries from far and wide throughout the electorate, the RSL sub-branch committee selected Sam's as the most worthy entry, alongside five highly commended award recipients. Sam was awarded the first prize, including flights and accommodation, with his mum, to visit the Australian War Memorial and Parliament House. I am happy to inform the House that Sam visited the War Memorial earlier today for a private tour and will be returning later today to participate in the Last Post Ceremony by laying a wreath. Thank you to Sam and all the other entrants in the Oxley Electorate Spirit of Anzac competition. I am pleased to announce that this will be an annual award, and I look forward to receiving entries in 2018.
O'Connor Electorate: Veterans
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (13:47): I rise today to thank the honourable Dan Tehan MP, Minister for Veterans Affairs, for his recent visit to Albany and Denmark in my electorate of O'Connor. It was an honour to show him around Albany's magnificent National Anzac Centre and take him to visit the Desert Mounted Corps Memorial, one of Australia's most significant military monuments. We met with the WA president of the RSL, Vietnam veteran Peter Aspinall, as well as members of the Denmark and Albany sub-branches. Minister Tehan briefed these veterans on expanded mental health provisions announced in the recent budget, which can be accessed immediately for ex-servicemen who have served just one day in the forces.
The highlight of the day was afternoon tea with three of Albany's most recognised World War II veterans. Murray Maxton flew bombers with his brother Eric over Europe, while 100-year-old Harold Martin and fellow veteran Neil MacPherson both survived enslavement on the notorious Thai-Burma railway. Both men were shipped to Japan towards the end of the war, with Harold surviving a torpedo attack and six days adrift at sea. Neil worked in the Japanese coalmines until the liberation and travelled through Nagasaki, witnessing the carnage of the atomic bomb. Neil turned 95 last weekend, and we joined his fellow residents at RAAFA Amity Village in wishing him a very happy birthday. Minister Tehan commended all these true heroes on their selfless service to our country, and I join him in saying that we were both honoured to spend the afternoon in such distinguished company.
Bruce Electorate: Dandenong Immigration Office
Mr HILL (Bruce) (13:48): I rise to record in this House the opposition of my community to Minister Peter Dutton's callous, out-of-touch decision to close the Dandenong immigration office. This is a multicultural area where more than 50 per cent of people were born overseas, and this small office provides critical access to services right across the south-east of Melbourne. There are only 15 staff, yet the office handles over 20,000 visits per year. It is utter, total hypocrisy; at best, $200,000 rent will be saved, while the department is spending $250 million to build a new headquarters in Canberra.
The Prime Minister talks of jobs in the suburbs, yet the reality is that he is cutting these jobs from the suburbs. We hear a big-game talk from the government about decentralisation, but apparently that applies only to the Deputy Prime Minister, because in this case we are recentralising jobs in the centre of Melbourne. We hear from the Prime Minister, when he comes to Melbourne, about his 20-minute city—you know, how you can live and work within 20 minutes of home? City planning, selfies on trams?
But the reality is this will mean 40,000 extra trips on trains and roads 35 kilometres into the Melbourne CBD. It is fine to say that services should be provided and available online; they should be. But the reality is many people still need face-to-face contact.
All we have had is silence from the minister despite the council's offer to accommodate these staff in their building in Dandenong. We challenged him to a coffee in Dandenong, not a boxing match, but he still has not shown up. We call on him to reconsider. (Time expired)
St Andrew's Church Choir
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (13:50): It is a privilege today to rise to honour the 175th anniversary of St Andrew's Church choir in the wonderful electorate of Goldstein. Yesterday, they celebrated this incredible anniversary of their choir, which can be dated back to 1842, making it Victoria's oldest choir. They did so through a couple of events. Firstly, there was the morning service, which my fiance, Ryan, and myself attended. We sung gusto—but, perhaps, not as much gusto as Tim Renouf, who always sings with us and with much more force—and enjoyed the morning. It was wonderful to be surrounded by good friends, particularly people such as Heather and Roger Sanderson.
In the afternoon they had a wonderful celebration led by their director, Thomas Heywood, who described the choir as a 'priceless cultural asset'. The choir included 39 young Brighton and Firbank grammarian chorus scholars. I am sorry to have missed this wonderful celebration simply because of our attendance at parliament. But I have heard from others who attended that it was a wonderful afternoon of choral song that filled people's hearts and souls, and lifted them up.
Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, if you ever have the chance to come to the wonderful electorate of Goldstein—and I hope you do—you will have the opportunity to come to St Andrew's Church, which is a magisterial building of hallowed halls, reverent spaces and an exceptional organ played by a wonderful organist. It lifts your heart and your spirit exactly to where you would wish it to be. Thank you.
Workplace Relations
Mr FEENEY (Batman) (13:51): A couple of weeks ago, I, together with my wife, Liberty, and son, Ned, was proud to visit and lend my support to the 89 Fletcher Insulation workers who have now been on strike since 17 February. As we move into the harsh cold of a Melbourne winter, these workers have kept faith with one another and their union, the AWU, and remained at their 24-hour vigil at the gates of this Dandenong factory.
These workers have been a key part of Fletcher's building success and growing profits, with many having given decades of their working lives to this company as loyal employees. This hard-working group has recently had their loyalty repaid with an enterprise agreement that would slash longstanding conditions and provide absolutely zero wage increases for three years while increasing their hours and undermining overall job security. This was an enterprise agreement they simply could not accept. It is not an easy choice for workers to take action like this. It is a long time for families to go without a pay cheque, but these guys are prepared to put themselves on the line for others and for what is right and fair.
I am proud to support these workers at Fletcher Insulation in their fight for fair treatment today, day 95 of their fight for justice.
Workplace Relations
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (13:53): There have been eight reviews into emergency fire services in Victoria and not a single one of those reviews has recommended the action which Daniel Andrews and Labor took last week to split the fire services into voluntary and paid agencies. This has caused much confusion for not just many of my local residents but also volunteer firefighters and paid CFA firefighters. The whole situation has become quite messy. Neither know where they are going to be actually working in the future.
What I do know is this: local CFA volunteers have had enough. Clematis CFA volunteer firefighter of 25 years Shane Miller was recently quoted as saying:
… to have two separate organisations in the same station makes no sense [because] CFA and MFB work on different radio frequencies, they're different organisations, different training.
Ferny Creek CFA captain John Schurink, who was sacked from the CFA board last year over his opposition to the EBA, raised his concerns about surge capacity.
I know that Labor members find it quite tiresome to hear about the CFA. But on this side we actually care about CFA volunteers, we respect the work that they do and we do not just care about what the UFU does for the Labor Party. We are actually about the volunteers and not about the UFU.
Workplace Relations
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:54): I rise today to outline to the House a recent report released by the Young Workers Centre in Victoria. It is entitled Young workers snapshot: The great wage rip-off. The report's findings are damning. It found that one in five of the young workers surveyed were not being paid the minimum rate but in fact were on rates that undercut the minimum wage and conditions. It found that, whilst three out of four of the surveyed workers work unsociable hours, such as nights, weekends and evenings, less than half actually received penalty rates. It also found that the rate of unpaid trials and working off the clock had increased, with one in five reporting that they were not being paid for off-the-clock work, where they are attending meetings and trials without pay. These findings are damning—a large number of people working on weekends not being paid penalty rates, and wage theft is rife.
Businesses are not taking this government seriously or the Fair Work Ombudsman seriously. It is time this government acted and actually gave young people in this country an opportunity and a start—and not just those looking for those but also those currently in work. Wage theft is a problem in this country, yet this government is sitting on its hands and doing nothing. Listen to the findings in this report, act on the findings in this report, and do something to help young Australians who are being exploited at work.
North Sydney Electorate: Volunteers
Mr ZIMMERMAN (North Sydney) (13:56): One of the inspiring parts of our jobs as members of parliament is the opportunity to work with individuals and organisations in our electorates who are helping others in need, be it the thousands of people who volunteer their time or the dedicated professionals working in the community sector. For many years I served on the board of the Crows Nest Community Centre and I saw their incredible work firsthand. I also know that my part of Sydney has been something of a trailblazer in the development of great community initiatives. For example, the early development of the Men's Shed movement occurred in Lane Cove. More recently, the Waverton Hub has provided a new model for engaging communities in a way that is attracting attention across the country.
Back in 1961, what is now called Lane Cove and Northside Community Services was a pioneer in the development of volunteer based organisations serving the welfare of local communities. Today the Lane Cove and Northside Community Services provides vital support for those living on the lower Northshore, particularly the elderly and those with a disability. Recently I had the opportunity to participate in the opening of the service's new premises in Lane Cove. I was delighted that we were able to secure a federal grant to assist the move. The new premises will allow the service to better meet the needs of the local community, and I congratulate all those involved in bringing these new facilities to fruition. More importantly, I want to record in this parliament the gratitude of so many in our community for the dedication of its staff and volunteers, led by the chair of the board, John Devine, and its general manager, Gillian Batt. Our community is stronger for all they do.
Education
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:57): I rise to condemn this government's crazy $22 billion cut to schools across this country. In my electorate of Lalor it is a $24½ million cut from the state schools across the electorate in the next two years. I call this policy out. It is not sector blind; it is not needs based. All it serves to do is highlight the uncertainty and, particularly cruelly, highlight the uncertainty for the special schools in my area that are facing dramatic cuts. I want to give a shout out to all of the teachers who have been working tirelessly under a needs based funding model who will now have the rug pulled out from underneath them by this government.
I finish by calling for the member for Melbourne to visit his state schools and hear directly from them what this government's policies are going to do in state schools across this country. Those opposite appear to have been misinformed. They have drunk the cordial. They need to come and sit with us, and they need to visit their schools and find out what is really happening. This is not Gonski 2.0; this is a farce and a con.
Bennelong Electorate: Schools
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (13:59): In recent weeks I have had the good fortune to visit many local schools in my electorate, including Carlingford High, Our Lady Queen of Peace Catholic Primary, Truscott Street Public School, Epping Boys High, Ermington Public School, Ermington West Public School and Melrose Park Public School. The students either received certificates for their participation in the Medtronic Bennelong Schools' Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Challenge I commissioned earlier this year or a recent school excursion to Parliament House for a highly engaged and impressive group of students.
One particular school stands out: Melrose Park Public School. They not only participated in the STEM Challenge but they won it. The three young outstanding students of the winning team, Jack McShane, Arjun Bhagotra and Ashlyn Gange, got to demonstrate their Riverside Guide app to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs when they visited and exhibited in the Great Hall as part of the Bennelong Innovation Fair.
I have just had the distinct pleasure of meeting this school here in parliament today. It was a real pleasure to see them again and to wish them the best for their Canberra excursion. Principal Clare Kristensen, ICT coordinator Pam Grover and staff should be proud of what they have achieved for this small school—a school that certainly punches above its weight.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Pauline Hanson's One Nation
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:01): My question is to the Prime Minister. Today The Courier-Mail reports allegations that One Nation conspired to defraud money from Queensland electoral authorities using inflated receipts. Has the Prime Minister referred today's allegations and previous allegations about One Nation to the Australian Federal Police to investigate whether any Commonwealth laws have been broken, including whether any similar fraud has been perpetrated against the Commonwealth? Will the government be reviewing monies paid to Coastal Signs & Printing to ensure taxpayers have not been defrauded through inflated receipts? (Time expired)
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on both sides will cease interjecting!
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:01): I thank the honourable member for his question. He raises some very serious matters which have emerged in the media this morning. I will be getting advice from the Federal Police Commissioner, the Minister for Justice and the Attorney as we review the media reports in the course of the next day.
An honourable member: Will you report back?
Mr TURNBULL: Absolutely.
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (14:02): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government is fully funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme so that all Australians with a permanent and significant disability can access the care they need to live with dignity? Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:02): As the honourable member knows, nothing speaks better of the character of our nation than the way in which we help those who are disabled and those who are less fortunate. That compassion and that love are what define us a great nation. It is the test of our character.
When we embark on a National Disability Insurance Scheme, the test is: have you paid for it? That is the question. Or are you just so filled up with the rhetoric of the moment that you are not prepared to pay the price? Are you prepared, as the Leader of the Opposition was, to get the plaudits from the sector, to get the plaudits from advocates for people with disability and to get the thanks from parents with disabled children but then not pay for it?
This was a shameful abdication of responsibility on the part of the Labor Party. I do ask honourable members opposite, filled with compassion—
Ms Macklin interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: The member for Jagajaga is such a powerful advocate for those who need the support of the community. She sits there as part of a shadow cabinet she knows well supports the government's policy but was overruled by the Leader of the Opposition because he wanted to score a cheap political point. He wanted to score a cheap political point. He knows as well as we do—as well as every member of this House and every Australian does—that the National Disability Insurance Scheme has not been fully funded. We came into government in 2013 and we sought to fill the gap with savings. We were unable to achieve all that we sought to do, and so we have faced up to that reality and we are asking Australians to pay an extra half a per cent on the Medicare levy, which will fund it—as Labor knows it will and as the majority of the shadow cabinet knows it will. It is the decent thing to do. It is the right thing to do. It will enable the scheme, when it is fully deployed, to support 460,000 participants who have a disability and enable them to lead decent, dignified lives. It will add 60,000 new jobs to the economy, particularly in regional Australia, and it will enable us to do what we should—pay for our promises, honour our commitments and do the right thing.
Budget
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:05): My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the bank tax which the government announced in its budget tax deductible for the big banks?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:06): I am advised that it will be a deduction for the banks as an expense that they have, but I ask the Treasurer to elaborate.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Griffith. The member for Jagajaga is warned. Members on my left will cease interjecting.
Mr TURNBULL: I have answered it, but if you want some more the Treasurer—
The SPEAKER: I know it is Monday. The question has come from my left; I would have thought members on my left would like to hear the answer.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:06): I thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity to add to the answer. That is the case—it is deductible as a business expense. I note that those opposite in recent days have been running the lines of the banks in support of their position. I have heard the shadow Treasurer—he does not know we know this—quoting bank executives who have turned up to functions with him and he has just gone out there and run the lines for them. What we know is that when it comes to ensuring we have a fair tax on our largest banks what you do not do is go and tax pensioners' bank accounts, which is what those opposite did when they put forward a measure—and that was not the right measure. What we have put forward in this budget is the right measure. We do not go out there, as the shadow Treasurer sought to do, and tax pensioners' bank accounts. We exclude that, as we rightly should. This is a fair measure, it is a well-constructed measure and it will be introduced into this place in this sitting fortnight.
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (14:07): My question is to theMinister for Social Services. Will the minister update the House on the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and how the government will ensure that it is fully funded? Are there any alternative approaches?
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (14:08): I thank the member for her question. As the member well knows, by 2020—as the Prime Minister also noted—about 460,000 Australians are estimated to benefit from the NDIS. What every single Australian who can benefit from the NDIS wants to know is very, very simple: can this parliament cooperate to once and for all—
Ms Butler interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Griffith is warned.
Mr PORTER: guarantee absolute certainty of funding beyond 2020? It appears that almost everyone agrees that a 0.5 per cent increase in the Medicare levy is the fairest way to provide this certainty. The Australian Federation of Disability Organisations say that this:
… gives peace of mind to people with disability that funding for the scheme is secure…
National Disability Services say:
Paying for the NDIS through the Medicare levy will put funding for the NDIS beyond doubt.
The Disability Advocacy Network say:
It seems to us that people do understand that it's a fair way to do it …
Why do people understand that this is a fair way to do it? First, the NDIS is an insurance scheme for all Australians and all of their families, regardless of what their financial circumstances might be at the time that they require help. Secondly, the Medicare levy ensures that Australians with more pay significantly more of the funding gap, and Australians with less pay significantly less of the funding gap. The top seven per cent would pay about 27 per cent of the funding gap; the bottom 10 per cent of income earners would pay 1.6 per cent of the funding gap. Who else agrees with the disability sector that this is fair? Each and every member on this side of the House agrees that this is fair. It now appears that 75 per cent of the shadow cabinet also agree that this is fair.
If the Leader of the Opposition will not take the advice of his shadow cabinet, maybe he should take his own advice. In 2013, when the Leader of the Opposition was a Labor minister and was advocating that the then opposition leader should agree to Labor's half a per cent increase in the Medicare levy, he said that, if the then Leader of the Opposition does not agree, he:
… needs to look in the face, people whose lives are second class, and say, 'I regard me getting into power is more important than your life.'
We now say to you, Leader of the Opposition: if you do not support this 0.5 per cent increase, you need to look into the faces of people whose lives are second class and you need to say, 'I regard me getting into power as more important than your life.'
Budget
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:11): My question is to the Prime Minister. Budget Paper No. 2 states that the bank tax will raise $6.2 billion over the forward estimates. Is that $6.2 billion before or after the banks claim a tax deduction?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:11): The $6.2 billion refers to the receipts for the Treasury from the bank tax, as the honourable member fully understands. That is the calculation that is set out in Budget Paper 2, in accordance with the standards that applied throughout all the terms of the Labor government and, indeed, of governments beforehand.
Asylum Seekers
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (14:12): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. According to a transcript published on your ministerial website, you said yesterday that in this country we have 7,500 people who have not provided detail about their claims for protection and are fake refugees. Are you prepared to repeat in this parliament the misleading statement that 7,500 people are fake refugees or do you only make such accusations from the bully pulpit of a press conference? You know that every one of those people is entitled to have their claim independently assessed, that every one of them may be a genuine refugee and that the government is just beating up on a group of vulnerable people to try and lift its poll numbers.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will cease interjecting.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:12): I thank the member very much for his question. To deal with the facts in relation to this matter, the honourable member, who was part of a coalition government with then Prime Minister Julia Gillard, will remember that when the Labor Party and Greens were in alliance they presided over a dismantling of John Howard's policies. At the time, when they came to government after Prime Minister Howard in 2007, they realised—and they will remember now—that there were only four people in detention, including no children. Under the watch of the Labor Party and the Greens in government in this country not only did 50,000 people arrive on 800 boats but, most tragically, at least 1,200 people drowned at sea. If you think that I am going to take a morals lecture from you, you have another thing coming.
The point I would make is that we are bringing refugees into this country in record number. We are doing it through the refugee and humanitarian program, which means that on a per capita basis we will bring more people into our country than any other nation in the world will bring into theirs, except for Canada. So we have an enormous amount to be proud of. We bring those people in, having verified their identity, having run the proper security checks and having made sure that those people who are coming to our country are going to take full advantage of the proposition put to them—that is, that being an Australian citizen provides a great opportunity and a great start in life for them, their children and generations to follow. Of that, all Australians should be very proud.
But we have been very clear, and I state it again today, that we are not going to allow people to settle in our country who have sought to come here by boat. We have been very clear about that. It has meant that for over a thousand days now we have not had a successful people-smuggling venture. It has meant—
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection will resume his seat. The member for Melbourne on a point of order?
Mr Bandt: On relevance: he was asked to repeat it here, and if he has not got the guts to do it he should sit down or withdraw it.
The SPEAKER: The member for Melbourne will resume his seat. There is no point of order. The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection is entirely in order. He has the call.
Mr DUTTON: In terms of the policy that we have presided over, yes, we have a mess to clean up of Labor's making—there is no question about that. It has cost us as taxpayers $13.7 billion since 2007-08, and it costs us $1.9 billion a year as a country to provide services to the legacy caseload. There are some people, to which the member refers, who have taken a decision that they have not provided information as requested. Despite numerous requests by officials within my department, they have not provided information in relation to the claim that they are making, unlike thousands before them, who do provide that detail so that we can properly consider those cases. I have said that, by 1 October, if they do not have details provided to us, we are not going to tolerate that situation going forward. So I am not going to take a morals lecture from a member of the House who was involved in a government that saw people drown at sea and saw complete chaos, including 8,000 children in detention. (Time expired)
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr Bandt interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on both sides! The member for Melbourne will cease interjecting.
Budget
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (14:16): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the budget is providing certainty and support to Australians with a permanent and significant disability, including in my electorate of Goldstein, and how has the budget been received by the disability care sector?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:16): I thank the member for Goldstein for his question and the opportunity to join with him on the weekend before last at Bayley House, which is a wonderful institution in Brighton, where we enjoyed a morning tea. There are some 220 clients, 135 staff and 60 volunteers there. They run a comprehensive program to support around 175 adults. Peter, Bri and Mary, who have been there for some time, showed us around the facilities. All of them and their parents and families are looking forward to the NDIS coming into full operation. They were very pleased to understand and know that, in looking to provide for families and people dealing with disabilities, we were giving guaranteed, fully funded support to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This is an issue of uncertainty and concern, and families and others who are relying on these services can know that this scheme is fully funded and paid for. What they want to be assured of is that this parliament is turning its attention to the delivery of this scheme rather than engaging in the politics of how it is funded.
The opportunity exists right now for those opposite to come to the middle, where the parliament is standing, to support the full funding of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, with the half a per cent increase in the Medicare levy two years from now. We are increasing the levy because we understand that this is a national insurance scheme, and all Australians, according to their capacity to pay, are being invited to be part of that through the increase in the levy, just as it was done by the Labor Party when they started this scheme, which was supported by those on this side of the House at the time.
Craig Wallace, former president of People with Disability, has said: 'This is a good decision to put battles over NDIS funding to bed. Disability can occur to anyone. Let's get above politics.' Therese Sands, the director of Disabled People's Organisations Australia, has said: 'We are extremely pleased to hear that an increase in the Medicare levy will fully fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme and finally guarantee the support needs of people with a disability.'
On this side of the House we are putting up the levy by half a per cent to fund what is a $55.7 billion funding hole in the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Those opposite, the Labor Party, are proposing to increase the Medicare levy not for that purpose at all. In fact, the shadow Treasurer and the shadow assistant minister have made it very clear they have no intention of putting one dollar of their increase in the Medicare levy towards supporting funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme. They are just taking a cheap opportunity to raise a tax. They have the opportunity to stand up. The entire Turnbull cabinet is fully supportive of this initiative, as is the entire ministry, as is the entire government. Those opposite are divided. (Time expired)
Budget
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:19): My question is to the Prime Minister. In the budget, what is the dollar value of the tax deductions forecast to be claimed by the banks in connection with the bank tax?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:19): The figures the honourable member raised a moment ago for the fiscal balance impact of a major bank levy totalling $6.2 billion over the forward estimates are calculated net of interactions with other taxes, principally corporate tax. The levy affects corporate and other income tax collections.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon will cease interjecting.
Mr TURNBULL: If the honourable member would stop interjecting, I will come to the answer. That is why in the first year the net revenue received by the Commonwealth shown in the fiscal balance impact is $1.6 billion. In the second year it is $1.5 billion, and that is because of the net impact of its interaction with other taxes. The difference is the answer to the honourable member's question—that is, the cost in terms of a reduction in receipts of other taxes, principally corporate tax.
Health Care
Mr IRONS (Swan) (14:21): My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the Minister update the House on how the government is taking action to guarantee Medicare and fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (14:21): I thank the member for Swan, who, along with every member on this side of the House, is guaranteeing Medicare and guaranteeing the NDIS. By contrast, those on the other side are threatening the NDIS—and it is part of a broader pattern. They started the Medicare freeze; we are ending the Medicare freeze. They ripped $4½ billion out of private health insurance—
Ms Husar interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lindsay will cease interjecting.
Mr HUNT: We are guaranteeing private health insurance. They ripped over $2 billion out of the PBS; we have just invested $1.8 billion in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. They ripped $660 million out of Medicare for doctors. We are ending the very thaw that they began, and we are doing that with $1 billion being invested into Medicare indexation. We are doing that with $2.4 billion going directly into Medicare as part of a broader $10 billion national long-term health plan. So there is real action to restore and take steps to improve our health scheme.
We are also guaranteeing Medicare with the Medicare Guarantee Fund, which, under law, will ensure that the first call on the budget is Medicare. And two things go into that: general taxes and the Medicare levy. The Medicare levy is the first 1½ per cent of the Medicare and NDIS levy. Because of decisions taken by the previous government, half of that goes to support the NDIS. But that only ever went part of the way. What we have seen, and what the Treasurer has shown, is that there is a $55 billion black hole. As we made the decision to support extending the Medicare levy, we presumed that there would be bipartisan support; most on that side presumed it too. But I have to say that, as I opened up The Age today—the large print edition—
The SPEAKER: The Minister knows the rules on props.
Mr HUNT: and read 'Shorten ignores advice of majority in shadow cabinet, Medicare splits ALP', I was astonished to find that the Leader of the Opposition had ignored the advice of 75 per cent of his shadow cabinet. It is a question of who on their side did not support the Medicare levy. We know that, in his heart of hearts, the Leader of the Opposition supports it. We have already heard the first part of his previous quote.
Ms Husar interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lindsay is warned!
Mr HUNT: What we also know is that he said three years ago that 'no-one could be that dumb not to support the NDIS levy'. He has said it again: 'No-one could be that dumb. I'm sure we'll get bipartisan support because to do anything else would be a betrayal of Aussies'—his words, his views, his betrayal of Australians right now. What a disgrace! (Time expired)
Budget
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:24): My question is to the Treasurer. In the budget, what is the dollar value of the tax deductions forecast to be claimed by the banks in connection with the bank tax?
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will cease interjecting.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:24): I refer the member to table 9 of statement 5, and that goes to the matter of the revenues that he is referring to.
I find it fascinating that, the second we move to actually put in place a proper levy on the banks, the first people to spring to the defence of the banks are those who sit opposite. We know what the tactics are here. We know that the tactics here are to try and kick up as much dust as they possibly can and to raise as much doubt about the levy as they can for all their friends who litter the executive corporate affairs offices of the major banks and who used to be employees of the Labor Party. We know this is the tactic: to come in here and cast doubt about a tax which fairly puts upon our major banks a recognition of the fact that they have an advantage of some 20 to 40 basis points in the environment.
Today that advantage was recognised by Standard & Poor's. It is true that the four major banks and Macquarie Bank were all able to preserve their rating from Standard & Poor's because of the very special place that they hold within our regulatory system. Sadly for those regional banks who do not benefit from that privileged position, they did not get that support from the ratings agencies. So we make no apologies whatsoever for putting in place a fair measure. If those opposite do not want to support the bank tax, do not vote for it. Otherwise, get behind it.
Agriculture Industry
Mr COULTON (Parkes—Deputy Speaker) (14:26): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House how third parties have responded to the government's investment in Australia's agricultural sector? How will this benefit communities all around Australia, and is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any threats to the agriculture sector?
Mr Hammond interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Perth will cease interjecting.
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (14:27): They get very excited when they hear from me! I thank the honourable member for his question. The honourable member has not been able to wipe the smile off his face since he heard about the Inland Rail, because it is vitally important for the development of our nation. We have been going around, seeing how people are endorsing this budget. We went up to Maryborough the other day with the member for Wide Bay, and they were ecstatic about what is happening with the Bruce Highway and how we continue to drive that investment up there. We went to Gracemere with the member for Capricornia and heard about the prices they are getting for cattle. They are very happy about that, and they are also very happy about the money on the table for Rookwood Weir, which the Labor Party up there does not seem to support, and the Labor Party down here does not seem to support it. We went to Casino with the member for Page. They are very happy about cattle prices. They are very happy about the Inland Rail and how it is going to take pressure off the highway. We went to Wodonga with Senator McKenzie. They are very happy about the Inland Rail. We went to Wauchope with the member for Lyne. They are very happy about the Pacific Highway upgrades and very happy about the Inland Rail taking pressure off the Pacific Highway. We went to Port Macquarie with the member for Cowper, and they are very happy about the budget. They like the budget. They like the instant asset write-off. We went to Calare, where will be a $4 billion regional investment corporation. They love that. It is going to be based in Orange. They like that. They are very happy about the budget. We went to Shepparton with the member for Murray. He is very happy about the instant asset write-off and very happy about the Inland Rail. We went to Mildura, to a farm field day. They love the Inland Rail. They love what we are doing with the instant asset write-off.
It is not just them, because the NFF said the Inland Rail is a real crown jewel of the budget for the farm sector. The New South Wales Farmers' Federation said it is ecstatic that the government has fully committed to build the Inland Rail. The Australasian Railway Association said the Inland Rail 'is fundamental to boosting rail freight'. Pacific National said it is a real game changer.
But it is not the only game changer around. There is another game changer over here, because who else likes our budget? The member for Grayndler likes our budget. He said it is a victory to be celebrated. Here he is, the member for Grayndler—the big easy. He is in there for a game change. The big easy is going to be like a big diesel-electric locomotive. Here he is—the big DDA40X, the 6,600-horsepower diesel-electric. And he is going to go straight past the member for Sydney, straight past the member for Watson and straight past the member for Rankin. And do you know where he is going to stop? He is going to stop at your station. He is going to stop in your chair. That is where the big easy is off to. He is going to stop in your chair—and you know it. Here he comes. Why don't you give him a question? Get him on his feet so we can hear from him. We have been hearing from him, because he is going around the press gallery like a big diesel electric locomotive. Here he comes! (Time expired)
Budget
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:30): My question is to the Prime Minister. Today both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have refused to say the dollar value of tax deductions forecast to be claimed by the banks in connection with the bank tax. So, Prime Minister, for the third time today, what is the dollar value of tax deductions forecast to be claimed by the banks in connection with the bank tax?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:30): The answer to that question is clearly set out in Budget Paper No. 2, plainly set out there, and the net consequences are also set out in Budget Paper No. 2, as I described. But this is just more obfuscation from the shapeshifting hypocrisy we have become used to from the Leader of the Opposition. Only a little while ago he was accusing the government of running a protection racket for the banks. Well, who is doing that now? Who is flinging up all sorts of obscurity and questions which are readily answerable from the budget papers, in the same form they have been from time immemorial? But of course the Leader of the Opposition is trying to crab walk away from the bank levy. He wants to crab walk away from that, just like he crab walked away from his commitment to fully funding the NDIS, just like he crab walked away from the workers at Cleanevent—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Moreton will cease interjecting. The Manager of Opposition Business has a point of order.
Mr Burke: On direct relevance, the question asks for a number. If the Prime Minister cannot be relevant—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business can resume his seat. The Prime Minister has indicated that he has concluded his answer.
Defence Procurement
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (14:32): My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister update the House on the government's national defence industry project that guarantees the future security of the nation and supports our economic prosperity through the creation of thousands of jobs? How does this compare with other approaches?
Dr Mike Kelly interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Eden-Monaro is warned.
Mr Robert interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Fadden is warned as well.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (14:33): I thank the member for Boothby for her question. Last Monday I had the great pleasure of going to Osborne with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence, Marise Payne, to launch the national shipbuilding plan. On this side of the House we are responsible for the largest build-up of our naval capability in peacetime—$90 billion of taxpayers' investment in the largest build-up of our naval capability in peacetime. It is laid out in the Naval Shipbuilding Plan that the Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence and I released last Monday—where we are going to find the skills and the workforce, what is required in terms of infrastructure, the build-up of our industrial capability—because we want as much of that spending as possible to happen here in Australia, creating jobs and investment. On the other side of the House—
Dr Mike Kelly interjecting—
Mr PYNE: By contrast, we are making up for the decisions that they did not make. And it has been very well received. The Naval Shipbuilding Plan—
Dr Mike Kelly interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Defence Industry will resume his seat. I warned the member for Eden-Monaro at the beginning of the minister's answer, when the chamber was at its quietest. He has continued to interject. He will leave under 94(a).
The member for Eden-Monaro then left the chamber.
Mr PYNE: The Naval Shipbuilding Plan has been very well received, particularly by industry, by the defence forces, by all of those in Australia who want advanced manufacturing, highly technical, highly valuable jobs. Even the Leader of the Opposition was on 5AA with Leon Byner the day after the release of the Naval Shipbuilding Plan. Leon Byner said, 'Wouldn't you say that that's a good initiative?' The Leader of the Opposition said, 'Of course we would—it's our initiative.'
I almost blew a gasket laughing as I was listening to the radio. Apparently the Naval Shipbuilding Plan, the national project to build 54 vessels, was all Bill's idea. It was all the Labor Party's idea. This man does stand-up comedy better than Pete Helliar on The Project. He is like Rapunzel at the top of his tower, completely disconnected from reality, cut off from the world.
We have 54 vessels that we have commissioned in four years of this government. How many were there under the Labor Party? Not one—zero, absolutely nothing in six years. Labor had a naval shipbuilding plan—it was called the valley of death. It was like a B-grade movie title. What they left in naval shipbuilding was a desert—absolutely no commitments to one ship to be built in this country in six years. We have 54 vessels driving 5,000 jobs in naval shipbuilding alone. That is $90 billion in naval shipbuilding, $200 billion across the build-up of our military capability. This is a government that takes defence and defence industries seriously— (Time expired)
Budget
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:36): My question is to the Prime Minister. The government has confirmed today that the big banks can claim an unspecified tax deduction for the bank tax. Can the Prime Minister advise whether bank customers will be able to claim a tax deduction if the banks pass the cost of the bank tax on to customers?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:36): Bank customers certainly would not be able to claim a tax deduction for interest if the Labor Party got in and abolished negative gearing. They certainly would not be able to do that. I should correct myself: wealthy borrowers, who could offset their interest cost against their investment income, would be able to, but doctors, nurses, policemen, teachers and other people would not be able to offset it against their employment income. So the Labor Party has a hide to talk about deductibility of interest. On this side of the House interest is deductible if it is incurred to acquire an income-producing asset, in accordance with the provisions of the income tax act since 1911, I believe. As far as the deductibility of the bank levy is concerned, the bank levy is a business expense, and they will be able to treat it like any other expense. I would invite the Treasurer to say a little more about this matter.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:37): Thank you, Prime Minister. I refer the Shadow Treasurer to his comments when he had his bank tax which was going to raise $2 billion—actually $1.5 billion at the time. They seem a little concerned about the tax we are putting in, which will raise more than three times that to support schools and hospitals and all of this important expenditure. When he was asked a question about it being passed on, when it was less than what it is today, he said: 'Well, it's a matter for them. In an open market economy they have to make a decision. It could be that the banks decide to absorb that much of the cost or make themselves more attractive to customers.'
When they are in opposition they are happy to go around and make these comments about these topics, but when they were in government not only did they not put extra funding into the ACCC, which will be tasked with monitoring everything that the banks do in relation to this matter—there were no extra powers, there was no extra money, there was nothing for the ACCC when the Shadow Treasurer, then Treasurer, put a tax on pensioners' bank accounts and deposits of $5,000 or $100. That is who the Labor Party wanted to tax when it came to the banks. They did not want to tax the banks; they wanted to tax depositors. It was called a bank deposit tax. It raised less than a third of the revenue that this government is raising by properly taxing the banks to ensure that the privileged position that they hold in our financial system—
Ms Husar interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lindsay will leave under 94(a).
The member for Lindsay then left the chamber.
Mr MORRISON: which today have had their credit rating restored—we have acted to ensure that we have the right measure in place. They wanted to raid pensioners' bank accounts.
National Security
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (14:39): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Can the minister update the House on the importance of strong and consistent border protection policies? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:39): It is funny that the member for Grayndler should interject, talking about the budget. He has a great interest in the budget, hasn't he? I might take the interjection, if you do not mind, Member for Grayndler.
He is talking about the budget. What we have done in this budget in this portfolio is to give money back where we have closed detention centres. When you were in government and all of the front bench there were sitting around the Gillard or Rudd cabinet table—
The SPEAKER: The minister will just refer to members by their correct titles.
Mr DUTTON: What happened in that day, of course, was that they ploughed billions of dollars into opening detention centres. They ploughed billions of dollars into offshore detention centres. After originally having cut money from the Customs portfolio they ended up having to put more money in to deal with the dilemma of having unravelled John Howard's successful policies when it came to border protection.
It is interesting that the member for Grayndler has taken such an interest in budget matters, because we have seen his comments over the course of the last weekend. They cast our minds back to the glory days of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. It was not just in border protection that the member for Grayndler and the Leader of the Opposition, who were cabinet ministers in that particular government, made decisions around this portfolio; they made decisions on many other matters as well—including of course the pink batts scandal, which was only a $2½ billion waste. And there was the $16 billion that they wasted on school halls. But, in relation to this particular portfolio, the figure so far is up to $13.9 billion—money that we could use to pay for the NDIS and money that we could use to put into schools or into the health department. But instead we are spending money, even today, on cleaning up Labor's mess in the border protection portfolio.
What we can be assured of is that this government will continue the policies that have seen children out of detention. There were 8,000 children in detention under Labor and 17 detention centres opened. We have closed those detention centres and got every child out of detention. We have presided over a model which has not seen a single person drown at sea. There were 1,200 people drowned under Labor's watch. If they are voted in at the next election, the division that we have seen between the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Grayndler will continue. That is what happened last time. We know it is still happening behind closed doors today, where the member for Grayndler is promising the Left of the party a very different policy on border protection if he becomes Leader of the Opposition.
That is his plan. It is part of his pitch. It is what he told the national conference of the Labor Party. He opposed the Leader of the Opposition in relation to boats. One thing that is certain in this place is that if the Labor Party win the next election they will dismantle the successful policies that have cleaned up Labor's mess. There is a lot more to do.
Budget
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:43): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's confirmation that people who are negatively geared can claim an increased tax deduction if banks pass on the cost of the bank tax. How much will these increased negatively geared deductions cost the budget? Why do banks and property investors get tax deductions while everybody else gets increased bank fees?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:43): Really, that bow is so long that the honourable member is pulling—it is taller than he is! Really! So, it is a revelation that people who borrow money to buy income-producing property can deduct the interest from the income? Well, that is still the law in Australia—it still is. It has been there for more than a century, and it is only the opposition who are the ones who want to abolish that.
The honourable member knows this full well as he tries to create a cloud of mystery about this and as he tries to run that this is the real protection racket of the major banks. Now we are seeing it being run with great vigour. The fact is that the major bank levy will be a cost to the banks, and they will use it to calculate their net income in accordance with normal company tax principles. As he knows very well, people who borrow money are able to buy an income-producing asset and can offset the interest against the income from the asset.
Of course, the big threat to that is the Labor Party, which wants to limit the ability to do that only to people who have substantial investment income. So people who are seeking to buy an investment property or buy a business or buy shares or buy some equipment and who want to offset the interest costs against their wages or their salary or their professional income will not be allowed to do that by the Labor Party, because it is a party that talks about fairness but practises the exact opposite. Those with lots of investment income will be able to deduct their interest; those on wages and salaries will not. That is Labor's idea of fairness. It is the complete antithesis of fairness. The honourable member should be ashamed of himself for proposing a policy that is so at odds with all of the principles his party has purported to stand for for over a century.
Education
Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (14:45): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government is delivering fair, transparent and needs based funding for every Australian student, including in my electorate of Dunkley? Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:45): I thank the honourable member for Dunkley for his question. Fifty primary and secondary schools and more than 27,900 students in Dunkley will benefit from my government's record investment in school education. As the principal of the Bayside Christian College, a school in the honourable member's electorate, recently said, 'When the Australian government recently announced a proposal for school funding, Gonski 2.0, we were overjoyed. Simply, this policy, which we understand to be needs based and sector blind, looks like really good and fair policy. With the implementation of this policy, we believe the current discrepancies in school funding will disappear and we'll have certainty of funding long into the future.'
We want every Australian child to have the best start in life. We want every student, regardless of the school they attend, to get a world-class education. We want our schools and our teachers to be the best in the world. That is why we are investing an extra $18.6 billion in schools over the next decade. That is why we are investing more than any previous federal government in our nation's history. Our schools funding package is fair, it is transparent, it is needs based and for the first time we will actually deliver the needs based funding model that David Gonski recommended six years ago. Before question time I heard an honourable member opposite saying that was not so. David Gonski clearly would not agree with her. The fact of the matter is that David Gonski's name was taken in vain by the Labor Party for years—27 secret deals, secret backroom deals, negotiated one after the other. There was no consistency, no transparency—they were anything but needs based. There was one need they were based on—the political need of the Gillard government. That was the only need they were based on. They certainly were not based on the needs of the students. We are delivering on those needs.
On 75 occasions the Leader of the Opposition has said that needs based funding is the only way you should fund schools—on 75 occasions. He said that the Labor Party was the only party that supported needs based funding. Based on their position at the moment, I would say the Labor Party is the only party represented in this chamber that does not support needs based funding, the only party that has abandoned David Gonski's model and the only party that has, in pursuit of shabby political advantage, abandoned Australian children and Australian schools shamefully. (Time expired)
Banking and Financial Services
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:49): My question is to the Prime Minister. For years now, whenever costs for banks have increased the banks have invariably passed those costs straight onto customers. But it seems that whenever costs go down the banks pocket the difference. Given that the banks have confirmed that they plan to continue this behaviour by passing on the cost of the Prime Minister's bank tax, when will the Prime Minister finally pull the banks into line and give them the royal commission they deserve?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:49): The banks are shaking in their shoes at the prospect of Bill Shorten and his royal commission.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will refer to members by their correct titles.
Mr TURNBULL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. They are shaking with fear but not shaking as much as the legal profession are in anticipation at the hundreds of millions of dollars in fees. The member for Isaacs and his colleagues will be delighted. The reality is this: we are dealing with the issue of bank misconduct. We are not having a royal commission. We are taking action. The one-stop shop, the Financial Complaints Authority, will see Australian consumers and small businesses with complaints against banks getting action, getting a result, right now. Our new rules that deal with the remuneration of senior executives in banks put on them a responsibility to be accountable for malfeasance in their institution at a level that has not been seen before. There have been many reviews and inquiries, and we know what has gone wrong with the banks. What Australians need now is action. They need action, and they need action right now—and that is what we are delivering: action now that will protect small businesses and protect consumers. It will protect Australians from being ripped off by banks. It will protect them when they have a claim. It will give them the opportunity to be heard and to get a result.
The honourable member opposite knows that he has been left behind on this issue of banking accountability. He has no policies and no solutions. He has a call for a royal commission, which will enrich the legal profession, cost hundreds of millions of dollars, take many years and end up, no doubt, recommending the types of measures that are already in this year's budget. The difference is this: we are getting on with the job. We are governing. We are delivering. We are protecting consumers. We are protecting small businesses. We are holding banking executives to account, and we are doing it right now. The only protection racket that is being run at the moment is by the Leader of the Opposition and by the banks and the legal profession who want to obfuscate and delay. We are getting on with the job. We are defending the Australian people. We are changing the law to protect them to ensure that banks live up to their obligations to serve the people as faithfully as they should.
Education
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (14:52): My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy representing the Minister for Education and Training. Will the minister update the House on how the government's Gonski needs based funding will support students and teachers at schools in my electorate? And is the minister aware of any threats to the government's plans to deliver fairer and long-term funding certainty for parents and schools around Australia?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (14:52): I thank the member for Forde for his question and know that he welcomes the Turnbull government's commitment to increasing funding for schools. The 41 schools in the member for Forde's electorate will get $1.95 billion to 2027. Upper Coomera State College, with over 2,000 students—a state school—will get $19 million. They will be like the other 9,000-plus schools that will get additional funding under the Turnbull government's reform to school education. There is $18.6 billion over the next decade—a 75 per cent increase. There will be more money for the independent sector, more money for the Catholic sector and more money for the government sector. Indeed, the Catholic sector is getting an additional $1.2 billion. This is a needs based system. This is a transparent system. This is a nationally consistent system. Indeed, we are adding emphasis on excellence, too, and that is what David Gonski has undertaken a review for.
I would have loved to have been in the Leader of the Opposition's office when he saw that third podium being filled by David Gonski when he joined the minister for education and the Prime Minister for that announcement. Indeed, the government's announcement has been welcomed by the Grattan Institute, by the Association of Christian Schools, by the Primary Principals Association and by the Council of State School Organisations. They have all welcomed it. Indeed, this is what the head of the Association of Christian schools has said: 'We'd like to loudly applaud a policy approach that is good for all schools.' He said, 'Well done for providing a model that can be applied fairly across all sectors and jurisdictions.' That is from the Australian Association of Christian Schools.
I am asked: am I aware of any alternative approaches? Well, we know that the member for Sydney is not really focused on education anymore. We know, because the member for Grayndler is out of the blocks. He is out of the box. The baton is out of his knapsack. We saw the ReachTEL poll, and the ReachTEL poll had the poor member for Watson down at 8½ per cent and the poor member for McMahon at 8½ per cent. The Leader of the Opposition could only get 26 per cent, and the member for Grayndler could get 26.2 per cent. But who got 30.7 per cent? The member for Sydney. So you might be focused on 27 separate deals for education. You might be focusing on pulling money out, as you did with PEFO in 2013. Only we can deliver better schools funding, and we will do it as a coalition government under the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull.
Budget
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:56): My question is to the Prime Minister. How is it fair that in this budget the Prime Minister can find a spare $65 billion for big business but Nowra East Public School in Gilmore loses $1.32 million over the next two years alone?
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney is warned.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:56): The honourable member is excruciatingly embarrassed by the fact that it is the coalition which has delivered David Gonski's need-based formula—she who has argued for years against all the special deals and secret deals, she who was shocked in government by the now Leader of the Opposition running around the countryside at Julia Gillard's behest signing up one contradictory deal after another: 'Anything to get a signature, don't worry about consistency, and for heaven's sake no transparency.' Transparency has not been a long suit of the Leader of the Opposition. The workers at Clean Event did not know what was going on. The workers at Chiquita Mushrooms did not know what was going on. When he had the chance to vote—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Sydney on a point of order?
Ms Plibersek: Relevance. This is a disadvantaged school losing funding, and he does not know, or he does not care.
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney will resume her seat.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I have asked the member for Sydney to resume her seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr TURNBULL: I think we will check that calculation. There is some contention as to whether the honourable member has got her numbers right. The one thing we do know is that more than 99 per cent of the schools in Australia receive additional funding.
But the most important thing is that we get in 10 years to a position where government schools are funded by the Commonwealth to 20 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard and non-government schools are funded to 80 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard as adjusted for the usual SES calculation. That is transparent. It is clear. It is set out on the minister's web application so that everyone can see. That is the big difference: it is needs based, it is consistent and it is transparent.
We will check what the honourable member said about that particular school and advise the House later as to the actual figures.
Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Adelaide will cease interjecting.
Budget
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (14:59): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House how the government's small business tax cuts are helping Australian small businesses to invest and employ more Australians? How has the budget been received by hardworking Australian small businesses?
The SPEAKER: Before I call the Treasurer—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney has been warned. She will cease interjecting. The Treasurer has the call.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:59): I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. I was pleased to be in her electorate during the course of last week, where I found out that, for public schools in Nowra, their funding is going up 60 per cent over the next 10 years. The other key feedback I got when I was in Nowra was from small businesses. This government has already cut tax for small businesses. More than half of Australia's workforce will now be covered by a lower rate of tax because of the cuts to taxation for small- and medium-size businesses that have already been legislated through this parliament.
I had the opportunity when I was in Nowra with the member for Gilmore to visit Nowra Flooring Xtra, where Aaron and Val Baker run a small business. They have a turnover of around $3 million. The Leader of the Opposition thinks a business with a turnover of $3 million is a big business—he thinks it is Google, Facebook or Microsoft—and he does not think that they should be getting the tax cut that they are now getting and that they should not be getting the extension of the instant asset write-off, which we announced in the budget. He also does not think that Aaron and Val Baker, down there in the electorate of Gilmore, should be able to do their GST on a cash basis. He does not understand that, for a small business with a $3 million turnover, being able to do your GST on a cash basis to better manage your cash flow is a massive opportunity for them. But that is what we have done. We have cut taxes for small business. We also had the opportunity to visit Gleeson Transport, a trucking company. They are getting a tax cut from this government so that they can better support their growth as a company and employ more Australians in the Shoalhaven, which is very, very important.
Those opposite, the Labor Party, are planning to put their hand in the till of every single company in this country, and they are going to start with small business. If those opposite are elected, they are going to reverse the tax cuts for small business. That means that, whether you are Aaron and Val Baker in the Shoalhaven or you are Bowmaker Realty in the electorate of Petrie, or wherever you happen to be, those opposite, the Labor Party, want to increase taxes on your small business. They want to take the threshold for small business from $10 million down to $2 million, because they know that, if they do not fulfil that pledge to put the taxes back up, they will have a $25 billion black hole—another black hole—and they cannot even get close to funding the promises that they bring in and out of this place.
We on this side of the House are cutting taxes for small business. We are investing in ensuring that small businesses can grow. We are looking to cut their red tape. Those opposite just want to put up their taxes and tie them up in red tape.
Budget
Ms COLLINS (Franklin) (15:03): My question is to the Prime Minister. How is it fair that, under your $22 billion cut to schools, Tasmanian public schools get a cut of $68 million over the next two years alone, while the Friends' School, a private school in Hobart, will get an extra $19.2 million over 10 years?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:03): Tasmanian Catholic schools will get a 4.4 per cent increase over the period. All but a very small number of schools—well over 99 per cent of schools—will receive an increase in funding under our Gonski needs-based policy.
I want to take the opportunity to deal with the matter that the member for Sydney raised a moment ago when she asked about the Nowra East Public School, which she said was going to lose money, but will in fact—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
Mr Burke: On direct relevance: this week, and when we were here during budget week, the Prime Minister increasingly is answering two questions ago every question, and he has just indicated that he wants to do it again. The whole idea of questions without notice is meant to be that, when we ask the question, the answer that is relevant is the one that follows, not the one that comes 10 minutes later. I ask that the Prime Minister be directly relevant to the question he has been asked.
The SPEAKER: I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for his point of order. If the Prime Minister were seeking to add to an answer of an earlier question on a different topic, I would concur, but he is still on the topic of education. I call the Prime Minister.
Mr TURNBULL: For the sake of completeness, I can confirm that the average annual per student increase over the next 10 years in Tasmania for Catholic schools is 4.3 per cent, for government schools is 3.9 per cent and for independents is 4.7 per cent. As to the school the member for Sydney referred to in Nowra East, the estimator website shows that, far from losing money, over the next 10 years it will receive an increase of $3.8 million.
The SPEAKER: Is the member for Sydney seeking to table a document?
Ms Plibersek: I am, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney.
Ms Plibersek: I seek leave to table the document that shows the funding cut, because even the New South Wales government says your calculator is broken.
The SPEAKER: Is leave granted? Leave is not granted.
Budget
Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay) (15:06): My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Will the minister inform the House how the government's small business tax cuts will encourage a stronger small business sector, meaning more jobs for hardworking Australians and more opportunities to strengthen local communities across the country, including my electorate of Wide Bay? Are there any obstacles standing in the way?
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (15:07): I thank the member for Wide Bay for his question; it is a good one. As the member for Wide Bay knows, there are 17½ thousand small businesses in his electorate, and this government backs each and every one of them each and every day.
Tuesday, 9 May was a great day for small business. It is the day we enshrined in law our tax cuts for small business, down to 27½ per cent, the lowest they have been for many, many decades. It is the day we enshrined in law the definition of a small business as having a $10 million turnover. Labor mistakes 'profit' for 'turnover'. It is turnover. This means that thousands more small businesses now pay less tax and can have access to the $20,000 instant asset write-off program—indeed, the 12-month extension. It is the day Wide Bay businesspeople such as Jason McPherson at CPM Engineering, David Phillips at Pedal Power Plus and Dave Hetherington from Goodyear Jewellers in Gympie—all of whom I met with the member in his electorate recently—knew this government had their back. It is also the day we delivered a budget boost for small businesses, with an extension to the popular instant asset write-off, because we know it helps them grow. It is the day we put $300 million on the table to incentivise states and territories to further cut through red tape. We have already cut $5.8 billion annually from the regulatory burden. Every day small businesses pay the wages of 5.6 million Australians, every day they provide opportunities to locals in communities across the country and every day this government stands by them, with them.
I was in Queensland last week as part of that state's Small Business Week. I heard across the state, as I heard in Gympie, that small business wants to grow. I heard firsthand from Queenslanders such as Kate Marland of Warners Fine Jewellery in Bundaberg, who used the instant asset write-off to purchase a computer and printer for her business. Kate's is a family enterprise and, thanks to the government's extension to the instant asset write-off, she is now looking to purchase a new drill, so that her dad—this is a true family enterprise—can more efficiently make the handmade jewellery for her shop to sell. Kate is just like Joy De Beer of Take Away Bins from Brisbane in the member for Bonner's electorate, who told me that our tax cuts 'saved' her business.
While we want a stronger small-business sector, there are some who do not—and I am looking at them. There they are! And 9 May also revealed what small business fears about those opposite: that, while we back small business, those opposite turn their backs on small business each and every day. Why do you hate small business? Why are you standing in the way? (Time expired)
Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Reports Nos 50 and 51 of 2016-2017
The SPEAKER (15:10): I present the following Auditor-General's performance audit reports for 2016-17: No. 50, Child support collection arrangements between the Department of Human Services and the Australian Taxation Office: Department of Human Services; Australian Taxation Office; and No. 51, Administration of Youth Allowance (Student) and ABSTUDY: Department of Social Services; Department of Human Services.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:11): A document is tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the document will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. I recommend it to the Manager of Opposition Business and the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources.
STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
Parliament House: Security
The SPEAKER (15:11): I have a short statement to make to the House. At the start of Senate estimates today, the President of the Senate updated Senate estimates on the proposed security works that members will be familiar with from last year, and I just thought that out of courtesy I would do the same for the House.
On Thursday, 1 December last year, the House of Representatives and the Senate approved the Group 2 security works to enhance the security here at Parliament House. I would like to advise members that, from today, you will start to see some signs of some of the work beginning.
The first stage of works will commence with the establishment of a temporary construction site on the northern front grass ramps. This will include the erection of temporary fencing and hoardings around these ramps in preparation for the construction of new security fences. The temporary fencing and hoardings will only be in place for the duration of the construction, which is expected, of course, to take several months.
Access to the footpath along Parliament Drive, the forecourt, the main public entrance and the public car park will not be affected. Some periodic traffic delays can be expected on Parliament Drive when construction equipment is brought onto the site. Building occupants will be notified of any significant delays wherever possible. There will be no traffic delays during peak times when the houses are sitting or during the estimates period.
While access to the grass ramps will be impeded for several months during this work, once the work is completed the public will continue to access a significant amount of the grassed area on the northern front side of the building. On completion of the work on the external perimeter at the front, work will then proceed around the building, with phase 2 covering the north-east and north-west corners and phase 3 covering the south-east and south-west corners, with the final stage being the southern ramps. Members may also notice work around the house commencing on the upgrade of CCTV security cameras.
Can I again stress: the changes will not impede or change the way that the public enters the building. The public has always entered across the forecourt and through the front doors, and they will continue to do so after all of this construction of Group 2 works is completed. The public will continue to access the roof of the building in precisely the same way, passing through the screening and going up to the roof via the elevators.
Despite some recent comment, the public has not been able to walk up the grass ramps and right over the top of Parliament House for 11 years, since the existing fences were erected on security grounds in 2005. There will be no changes to the current arrangements for protest action on the authorised assembly area at the front of the building. Of course, as Presiding Officers, we see it as our responsibility to ensure the safety and security of all Parliament House occupants, including staff, the press gallery and the million people, of whom 130,000 are schoolchildren, who visit Parliament House annually. These security enhancements balance the requirement to maintain the security of the building and its occupants with continued open access to the many visitors who come to parliament each year. All security enhancements—those already completed and those starting today—are the result of advice from our security agencies and are based on many months of consideration. Together with the President of the Senate, I regularly receive advice on the security of Parliament House and that advice guides all of our decisions.
Finally, design for the security enhancements was prepared by Guida Moseley Brown Architects, led by Mr Harold Guida, who is one of the moral rights holders on behalf of the late Romaldo Giurgola, the nominated architect for Australian Parliament House. The perimeter security enhancements have been carefully designed to minimise the visual impact while maximising public access. Following completion of the work, the building will remain one of the most open and accessible in the world. I say to members that, whenever there are future updates I feel I should give, I will give them in this way here in the House.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:15): Mr Speaker, I rise to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr SHORTEN: Most grievously.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition may proceed.
Mr SHORTEN: During question time the Prime Minister asserted that I have not provided funding for the NDIS. This is untrue. I and Labor helped build the NDIS. I and Labor will always protect the NDIS. Labor will always ensure that it is properly funded. Our plan is just fairer and better, because we do not want 10 million working Australians to pay more and millionaires to pay less. That is why we have the best plan for the NDIS and Australia.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2017-2018
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018
Reference to Federation Chamber
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (15:16): I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, at the adjournment of the House for this sitting the following bills stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration: Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2017-2018 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018.
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2017-2018
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (15:17): The data would be aggregate totals of funds transferred from Australia to overseas destinations. Since this type of information has been released under freedom of information, it is not considered controversial to release it under Labor's plan.
Another part of our plan is the disclosure of material tax risk for government tenderers—again, a recommendation of the Senate Economics References Committee. This would see any company tendering for a contract valued at more than $200,000 needing to disclose their tax domicile. The next part of our plan is to develop guidelines for tax haven investment by superannuation funds. Some Australian superannuation funds are known to invest in companies incorporated in tax havens. Our plan would ensure that they are transparent about their dealings in such jurisdictions.
Penultimately, our plan includes a publicly accessible registry of the beneficial ownership of Australian legal entities. While Australia committed to the G20 reforms on beneficial ownership transparency in Brisbane in 2014, the government has been slow to act. Transparency International rates Australia's overall beneficial ownership rules as 'weak', and the Financial Action Task Force found that Australia's beneficial ownership regime was only partly compliant regarding companies and completely noncompliant regarding trusts. We would require ASIC to establish a publicly accessible central register of the beneficial ownership of companies, trusts and other corporate structures. Finally, on the ATO's disclosure of settlements and reporting of aggressive tax minimisation: in its annual report, the ATO would be required to include high-level data about the value and number of settlements above a value of $50 million, providing greater transparency for Australians.
Labor's plan for cracking down on tax havens stands in stark contrast with the government's willingness to allow tax havens and other tax loopholes. While they stand for millionaires, multinationals and those who have stashed their wealth in the Caymans, we stand for battlers and middle Australia and for making sure that middle Australia gets their fair share. (Time expired)
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan—Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services) (15:19): I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2017-2018 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018. This is an important budget. This budget is about making the right choices to provide opportunity and secure better days ahead for all Australians. I note with pride the Turnbull government's commitment to defence. As part of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) the Department of Defence will receive more than $32 billion to keep our nation safe. Last Wednesday I joined the Minister for Defence Industry at Gallipoli Barracks in my electorate to launch the new generation of trucks and trailers as part of the government's $3.5 billion LAND 121 project. I can assure members here today that through the strategic procurement of new military equipment like the next generation of trucks I witnessed last week and, importantly, many components sourced from local Australian businesses, the coalition is ensuring the best products for our Defence personnel as well as supporting local jobs and growth.
Australian service men and women can be assured that the coalition is acting in their best interests. This year's budget represents a significant increase in funding of $350 million for the support of veterans and demonstrates our commitment to the men and women who ensure Australia's freedom and safety. Importantly, the government is focused on responding to the mental health needs of our former defence personnel and providing support that will help them to achieve a positive life outside of service. Last year's budget saw the coalition provide treatment for depression, PTSD, anxiety and drug and alcohol misuse free for anyone who had served even a day in the full-time ADF. The $33.5 million expansion of the non-liability health care program to cover all mental health conditions, announced in the 2017 budget, recognises that the earlier a veteran receives treatment, the better their health. Funding for mental health treatment is demand driven and not capped. If an eligible person requires treatment, it will be provided. As a government and on a personal level we understand that families of service members also bear the brunt of military service. In recognition of this, the budget provides $8.5 million to expand eligibility for the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service.
The health portfolio will receive more than $11 billion to ensure the essential services that Australians deserve. Of this funding, $3 billion will be used for the Home Support and Care Program to provide assistance for older Australians so they can remain in their homes and stay connected with their community.
The 2017 budget is delivering for health and supports our long-term national health plan, based on the four pillars of guaranteeing Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, supporting hospitals, prioritising mental and preventative health and investment in medical research. The coalition has a solid track record when it comes to improving Australians' access to medicines with a strengthened Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. We are immediately delivering on this commitment in the 2017 budget, with more than half a billion dollars to list special medications for patients with chronic heart failure. This will benefit more than 60,000 Australians every year, who currently pay around $2,000 a year for these medicines. Our careful management of PBS spending means that we are able to list new, effective medicines on the PBS when they become available. Australia's PBS is one of the foundations of a universal health care system, the envy of the world.
The Department of Social Services will receive $5 billion. This money includes more than $800 million per year for the provision of demand-driven disability employment services, and $225 million for other disability and carer services. In my capacity as Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services, I see firsthand how the coalition government's disability employment services policy is creating more opportunities. Members here will be well aware that Australians with disability are underrepresented in our workforce. More than 14 per cent of people who are of working age have a disability, but only 53 per cent of people with disability are working or seeking work, compared with 83 per cent of people without disability. This is one of the lowest rates in the OECD for workforce participation of people with disability. We must do better.
That Australia ranks 21st of the 29 OECD countries is not acceptable. As I often say, if it were a sport, it would be on the front page of our papers and held up as a national disgrace. But for people with disability to be employed at the same rate as people without disability, 640,000 more people with disability need employment. Our challenge is to bridge the gap to help more people with disability find and keep jobs and to encourage more employers to employ more people with disability. Employment offers a person economic security and independence, and contributes significantly to their positive wellbeing. For a person with a disability, often their job is more than just a job; it links them to the community and exposes them to new experiences. In government and in the community, and among business and industry, we need to do all we can to recognise the benefits of employing people with disability.
On budget night the coalition confirmed our commitment to improving employment outcomes for people with disability, announcing improvements to the Disability Employment Services program. I have spoken to many stakeholders since budget night and they tell me the changes have been well received. There will clearly be some qualitative differences on certain budget measures. But, simply put, Australians do not want government to spend more than Australian taxpayers can afford. We all have a moral responsibility to restrain spending, boost investment, encourage economic growth and guarantee a strong social safety net. Labor's magic pudding economics that underwrote year-on-year promises of a non-existent budget surplus resulted in increasing deficits and leaving disappointed Australians genuinely concerned about our economic future. When was the last time a Labor government delivered a budget surplus?
Mr McCormack: 1989.
Mrs PRENTICE: You are completely correct, Minister; it was 1989, when the member for Bendigo and the member for Hotham were just nine years old. Much has changed in this time, including a return to surplus during the Howard government years—which was only to be destroyed by the Rudd government's economic mismanagement debacle and his 'School of the Magic Pudding' ministers, many of whom still sit opposite today.
The critical importance of adequately funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme is especially important to me. This vital aspect was addressed in the 2017 budget by way of a 0.5 per cent increase in the Medicare levy from 1 July 2019 to once and for all ensure that Labor's NDIS funding black hole is filled. It is simply not true that the NDIS was properly funded when Labor left office. Savings that Labor claimed were to be directed to the NDIS were simply returned to consolidated revenue and spent several times over; they were never set aside for NDIS. Unlike Labor, the coalition actually has the plan to implement fiscal policy that will ensure a fully funded NDIS not just for the short term but for future generations.
I segue to small business, the engine room of our economy. The 2017 budget gives small businesses right across Australia the confidence that the coalition government is acting in their best interests. The Ryan electorate is home to more than 13,000 small businesses, from sole proprietors to larger entities. Small businesses are responsible for 36 per cent of all economic output in Australia and employ more than 4.7 million Australians, which amounts to 45 per cent of all employment in Australia. Travelling around my local community, I constantly hear about the support small businesses have for the positive impact that this year's budget will have for them. Most notably, small businesses and their supporters are reassured by our measures to increase the small business turnover threshold from $2 million to $10 million to allow more small businesses to access small business tax concessions and reduce red tape.
The 2017 federal budget continues the government's plan to back hardworking small businesses to create more local jobs and pursue new investment. This means a lower and well-received small business company tax rate of 27.5 per cent and simplified depreciation rules, including immediate tax deductibility of assets worth up to $20,000. We know that small businesses are a big deal. Any avenue that we as a government can provide to help them grow further acknowledges their contribution to the Australian economy.
These businesses include businesses like Kenmore Plaza Seafoods. Known by families in the area as the place of 'Charlie's chips', Kenmore Plaza Seafoods is thriving—so much so that the owners, a family business, improved their eat-in dining options. Briki, an espresso and gelato bar located on Hawken Drive in Saint Lucia, typifies the success that local small businesses have achieved through measures of the coalition government. Sav and his family have expanded their business to become the favourite Greek institution known throughout Brisbane.
These are the types of businesses that are the lifeblood of Australia's economy and provide employment for young, old and, importantly, those with disability. I must not forget the quintessential local hardware store, Doyles Home Timber & Hardware, at Blackwood Street Mitchelton. This family-owned business services tradespeople and 'DIYers' alike, but still remains old-fashioned and familiar. With staff employed from the local area, this well-equipped and experienced business is another Ryan business that typifies the positive outcomes of hard work. As a government, we are doing everything in our power to give them a big future. We are a government of results. The beneficial results that the coalition has achieved speak for themselves.
Ben Carson, a famous neurosurgeon and current Republican politician, once said that economics is not brain surgery. So I ask: why is it that Labor continually underperforms and, worse, criticises the coalition for taking the necessary steps to create a secure platform for economic growth? The Australian public is tired of Bill Shorten's relentless negativity. It is tired of the politicking of the Labor Party, which is trying to stop investment in this country—investment that will support more growth for better paid jobs and more jobs for Australians. While I recognise the Labor leader wants to run the government like a union, Australians do not want their government to spend their money like a union boss with a union credit card. More debt is not the measure by which I want future generations of Australians to judge us. This parliament must work.
For the government, money to make things happen can only come from three places—increased taxes, increased borrowings or savings. Only the coalition government take their financial responsibilities for the NDIS seriously. We understand the necessity to ensure that we live within our means, support Australian families, make Australia safe and encourage economic growth. Unlike Labor, only the coalition has a plan to secure better and more jobs, and better pay. Only the coalition has a plan to guarantee essential services like Medicare and the NDIS, and ensure Australian families can raise their children in a safe environment with food on the table. Those opposite simply do not have a plan.
I commend these bills to the House.
Ms COLLINS (Franklin) (15:33): This budget and these appropriation bills are, indeed, for big businesses and millionaires. Pretty much, it is not good news for every other Australian, particularly those working Australians who have to have an increase in their Medicare levy. There is an increase in the Medicare levy while there is still a $22 billion cut to schools, while we still have not seen a complete unfreezing of the GP rebate immediately and while we hear from the other side that they are still planning on a $64 billion tax cut for big business. We have a budget that says wage growth is at record lows and that says unemployment is going to go up, and we have those opposite trying to talk about fairness and say that this budget is a good budget. It certainly is not a good budget for most Australians.
Millionaires, with the removal of the deficit levy, will get a tax cut of over $16,000 while average Australian workers on $65,000 will have to pay an extra $325. Those earning $80,000 will have to pay an extra $400 a year because of an increase in their Medicare levy. That is, of course, without the government's plan to cut average working Australians' penalty rates. That will affect all of those Australians and those industries that have been affected today. I hear from people—particularly from nurses and other people in my aged care portfolio—who are concerned that this is going to be much broader than that and that their penalty rates, too, are at risk.
Also in this budget we have seen the farce about the Medicare guarantee. We hear from the other side that they are going to guarantee Medicare, but Australians of course know better. The government have done nothing but undermine Medicare every time they come to office, and then every time Labor get into office we have to fix it. Every single time they get into office they undermine Medicare and take money out of the health system, and then when Labor come into office we have to fix Medicare because those opposite have tried to undo the universality of Medicare. Let's be really frank about what the government call their unfreezing of the Medicare rebate for GPs. In the first 12 months only about seven per cent of those things that are billed under the Medicare GP rebate are actually going to get an increase in that rebate. Everybody is going to have to wait until at least 1 July 2017 for a normal, average GP consultation, and then of course they are already years behind in what that rebate should have been. For those opposite to come in here and suggest that it is all over and there is no freeze on the Medicare rebate for GPs is just not true.
There are so many things about the rhetoric in this budget that are not true. We have had the NDIS lie. Those opposite come in here and say that Labor did not fully fund the NDIS; that is absolutely not true. Our budget papers from when we were in office show that it is not true. Labor did fund the NDIS fully and properly, and our budget papers show that we were doing that. Those opposite want to talk about the NDIS and not politicise it, but they have done nothing but that. Every single day since the budget, they have been coming in here, trying to politicise the NDIS. I want to tell them about people in my electorate who are relying on the NDIS. They are more concerned about its current implementation than a political fight about the way it is funded. They are actually concerned about whether or not the person whom they are caring for, who is relying on the NDIS, is getting the support they need. There are implementation issues with the NDIS, as we would expect with any major reform, and the government should be focusing on fixing that implementation rather than coming in here and trying to play political games with the NDIS, because there are people in my electorate who are relying on it working properly, who are unsatisfied, who are worried about its implementation and who have had packages cut in recent months from their original packages. They are really concerned about the NDIS and how it is being rolled out at the moment. So what we do not want to hear from those on the other side is the politicisation of what is a very significant reform that did have bipartisan support and that I am sure many members on the other side are just as concerned as I am about its rollout, because it is so important that we get this right.
Then we have the government's rhetoric around Gonski and school funding. I asked a question today of the Prime Minister about the $68 million cut to public schools in Tasmania over the next two years. Of course, he did not really want to answer the question about the cut to public schools in Tasmania, because he knows that the schools in Tasmania are getting $68 million less than they would have got under a signed agreement that the government has with the Commonwealth. That is the reality—$68 million less over the next two years going to public schools in my home state, and it means that students in public schools in my electorate and every other electorate in Tasmania will be missing out and not getting the support that they need over the next couple of years.
Interestingly, we have the Tasmanian state budget this week, which I am sure those on the other side would not have paid any attention to.
Mr McCormack interjecting—
Ms COLLINS: It is an interesting interjection by the minister that Will Hodgman is a good premier. Will Hodgman has not stood up for Tasmania at all against this government. He has not stood up for Tasmania when it comes to the cut in school funding. He has not stood up for Tasmania when we received a cut to our hospital funding. He has not stood up for Tasmania when we got zero dollars in the last infrastructure budget, as they wanted to call it, which we know is a farce, because there is no new money for projects in my home state of Tasmania. As I was just saying to the minister, not one federal minister came to the state of Tasmania in the week after the budget—not one. We had something like eight senior shadow ministers come down and talk to Tasmanians about the impact of the budget, but the government could not send one single minister to Tasmania to talk about the budget. Tasmanians are truly feeling left off this government's map. Time and time again, the government is making decisions—and it is only when Labor stands up for Tasmania that this government starts to take notice. So I expect that in the next few weeks we will have a few government ministers come down and do their thing around the state, but we will only see them come because Labor has called on them to do so and because Labor has demanded that they take notice of my home state.
I am sure that when they come they will not talk about their cuts to our schools. I am sure they will not talk about the cuts to universities. I am sure they will not talk about the change to the HECS threshold that many Tasmanians will be affected by. Tasmanians, sadly, have the lowest average incomes in the country. Lowering the threshold from $55,000 down to $41,000 before HECS is repaid will affect a lot of Tasmanians and will affect the marginal tax rate of many Tasmanians. And, of course, there is the TAFE cut. The cut to TAFE will also impact on my home state. I have had a couple of TAFE teachers come to see me concerned about the undermining of TAFE and concerned that Tasmania is getting school cuts, university cuts and TAFE cuts. When this government talks about jobs and growth, Tasmanians start to wonder exactly where the jobs and growth are going to come from. When you do not invest in young people, when you do not invest in the skills and the training that young people need, when you do not give people an option of tertiary education at university or TAFE, then how are the Tasmanian public going to get the skills they need to take up the jobs of the future? Clearly, they are not. Clearly, you cannot say that you support jobs and growth and then not properly fund schools, not properly fund TAFE and not properly fund the university system, and then go and make low-income Tasmanians pay more with the HECS threshold change and the increase to the Medicare levy.
Tasmanians simply can not afford it. As I said, they already have some of the lowest incomes in Australia. We had new data last week that talked about housing affordability. I know it might surprise some people in this chamber, but Hobart is right up there with Sydney for unaffordability of housing. We are one of the worst places in the country for housing affordability, because of the low incomes that Tasmanians rely on. It is well known that a disproportionate number of Tasmanians rely on government support payments, because the incomes are so low. It is no surprise to anybody who has come to Tasmania that we have areas of very significant disadvantage and pockets of high unemployment. But the cuts in this budget in no way address that—in no way at all.
The only infrastructure projects that are happening in Tasmania are ones that were announced and funded by Labor in 2013. There are only two small additional projects that are happening in Tasmania and one large infrastructure one for the university, and they are all things that Labor committed to and promised before the government did. They are all projects that Labor lobbied for. And I go back to my point that this government only pays attention when Labor stands up for Tasmania. During the previous election campaign, Labor came out early for funding the Hobart airport roundabout upgrade in my electorate. We came out early for the University of Tasmania relocation in Launceston and Burnie. The government was dragged kicking and screaming to make those same commitments. They are the only additional things in the budget that the government has funded, and Labor had previously committed to them. So Tasmania is feeling pretty disappointed and pretty left out from this budget.
I also want to talk about my portfolios. I am the shadow minister for ageing and mental health. People in the ageing sector and those older Australians who are relying on aged-care support, either in residential care or in their homes, will be pretty disappointed by this budget also. Whilst they have not had the cuts of previous years—I will grant the government that; it had previously been using aged care as an ATM and taking billions out—what we did not see were thoughtful responses to some of the serious issues around ageing in Australia. What we did not see was a commitment on level 3 and level 4 aged-care packages for home care. There is currently a 12-month waiting list for people to get level 3 and 4 packages in their homes. What happens in that 12 months while people are waiting for a package? Usually one of two things happens—people go into the emergency department or they go into residential aged care before they are ready, because there was no package available. It would be better to support these people in their home sooner rather than it costing everybody more paying for them to go to an emergency department or into residential care. The government is actually costing itself more by not funding the packages.
These aged care packages also come after somebody has had what is known as an ACAT or a RAS assessment. These assessments, too, are behind. I have had reports of the ACAT assessment that the states conduct taking up to six months. So you have your ACAT assessment and then you have the wait for your home care package. By the time you might finally get the package, it is 18 months down the track. Older Australians surely deserve better than that. Older Australians who want to stay in their homes rather than go into residential care or end up in a hospital emergency department I am sure would rather have those packages and stay at home, as I am sure their loved ones would prefer.
I also want to talk about mental health. I have offered the government bipartisan support when it comes to the mental health portfolio— particularly around suicide prevention, given the statistics and the data that we have seen, with suicides in Australia being at the highest level they have been in a decade. It is something that requires urgent action from government, and I have offered my bipartisan support to the government. So, I was pleased to see some additional funding—$115 million—for mental health in the budget, $80 million of that being for psychosocial services that will support those people who are outside of the NDIS and who have severe mental illness and need support who are currently in programs. Whilst I am pleased to see that, I do say it is not enough. I understand from the Minister for Health and the minister's office that the minister is working on some more support, and I would appreciate a briefing from the government on how that is rolling out and how that will occur. We also saw some significant funding for more suicide prevention, which I also support, but we really do need to do more when it comes to the mental health of Australians. Whilst I was pleased to see some $115 million in the budget, clearly we do have a long way to go and clearly we need to do more to deal with the terrible suicide toll in Australia. I again pledge bipartisan support to work with the government in this really important area. I will be doing everything I can to ensure that this area of public policy is properly funded and receives bipartisan support.
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (15:47): It is good to be here in the House while the Minister for Small Business is at the table—I thank him for visiting Canning during the nonsitting week. We had a forum with local small business owners, and that was very successful. They found it very useful. I know how hard our ministers work—I think you were home for one or two nights, Minister, over an extended period, so thank you.
I, like no doubt many others in this place, am regularly asked by constituents what I do as a member of parliament. Sometimes that question comes out of sincere curiosity; more often, though, it comes from a place of suspicion and cynicism. Many Australians struggle to believe that politicians achieve anything, let alone that they have the interests of their electors at heart. So, fundamental to the role of an MP is the enacting of good legislation—legislation that serves the public interest and sets conditions for a flourishing Australian society. Since becoming the member for Canning, just over 18 months ago, I have sought to ensure that the interests of people from my region, the Peel region, are reflected in the laws that we make.
Last year the federal government passed the backpacker tax, which made a huge difference to my fruit growers in the north of Canning. Canning is home to a thriving horticultural industry. We grow some of the best fruit in WA. One of the perennial issues we face is that we struggle to secure Australian workers. When Senator Sinodinos visited Canning last year, he spoke directly with the fruit growers and they said to him, 'We are competing with the welfare system when it comes to securing Australian workers.' That is why backpacker labour is so important. We also needed a competitive tax rate for working holiday visa holders, and the government has delivered just that.
We also had a postcode issue. Some growers were living in postcodes that rendered them ineligible for the working holiday visa extension: postcodes 6076 and 6111. It was great to see the Hills Orchard Improvement Group, led by spokesman Brett DelSimone, lobby me and also the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. He met directly with them, and we were able to come up with a good solution. Now those fruitgrowers are working at full steam, and they are being productive. So that is one example over the last year when I think about what my role as an MP in parliament is: it is creating the conditions where my constituents can flourish.
In the budget from last week, there are some great opportunities and measures for the Australian people. I think straightaway of the measures to cut red and green tape. People in Canning want it to be easier for local businesses to have a go and get ahead. We spoke about that with the small business minister when he visited. People want to see jobs in their region. Many want greater freedom to run their own businesses. I have done a lot of town halls over the last month—six, in fact—and the feedback I have had from constituents is frustration with red and green tape. I think of Stuart McCormack from Pinjarra, who spoke for the farmers in Coolup when he said that their competitiveness was being strangled by red tape and environmental regulations. He mentioned prohibitive, inaccessible regulation as being a major disincentive for most farmers expanding their operations. So, in the budget, we have committed to reducing red tape by providing $300 million to the states and territories to remove unnecessary regulatory barriers. This builds on the $5.8 billion of red tape reduction that has so far been delivered by the coalition government.
Also for small business, we are delivering small and medium business tax cuts that will help the 11,570 businesses in Canning with turnovers up to $50 million if they are incorporated, and up to $5 million if they are unincorporated, to invest and employ more Australians. I think of the instant asset write-off. The 2017 budget extends the $20,000 instant asset write-off for a further 12 months, to 30 June 2018. The turnover threshold will also be lifted to $10 million. This measure will help improve cash flow for small business, helping them to reinvest in their business and replace or upgrade their assets. Many businesses in Canning can take advantage of this.
I think of one new business which opened up only 10 weeks ago, King Road Brewing Company in the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale, owned by Dave McKee. They had to open early because of the overheads, and now they are turning away people at the gates. I took my wife and my son for a meal there on Mother's Day. We rocked up at 11.30, and they had already shut the gates because they had exceeded their 200 patrons. It is great to see business thriving. There is a lot of negativity out there, but I will tell you what: there are signs of life in Canning, and it is again small business taking the lead. It is very encouraging.
One thing that is also in the budget is the introduction of compliance measures such as drug testing for 5,000 welfare recipients, which will take effect in January 2018. We have a serious drug problem in Canning. I do not pretend Canning is a perfect part of the world. Our wastewater indicates this. In fact, regional WA has a higher-than-national-average rage of ice usage. Just last week, approximately 250 metres away from the Centrelink office in Mandurah and about 300 metres away from my own office, I was breath-tested at 10.30 in the morning, not because I was driving erratically but because we have a drug and alcohol problem in the centre of our town. So I am hoping that this measure can be rolled out. I have spoken to constituents. They want to see action taken.
To those who push back against the drug testing, I can say from personal experience that, whilst on service overseas in Afghanistan, I had to take several drug tests as part of my job. We were sending soldiers into harm's way, and we were still being drug tested. If it is good enough for the ADF, it is good enough for welfare recipients who have a drug dependency. Ultimately, this is designed to help them. The cashless welfare system is the proposed solution if they test positive.
Civic institutions are a really important part of Canning. I think of sporting clubs, including the AFL clubs. I recently went to the Port Bouvard Surf Life Saving Club annual awards. It was a great night. I think of the numerous charities and churches, including the brand-new Free Reformed Church of Mundijong, a beautiful building in a nice paddock out in Mundijong. The Free Reformed Church does a lot of good things in Canning. I recently saw how much they care for their community at the funeral of Laeticia Brouwer, who was a member of the Free Reformed Church of Baldivis. The congregation there was a great example of what a strong and healthy community looks like.
All these civic institutions are separate from government. They do not need our bureaucracy; they do not need our assistance—although we do try to empower them, and the volunteer grants are one way in which we do that.
I can think of two examples where people in Canning have achieved success through collective action. They have demonstrated that grassroots democracy is very much alive. The first example is of the residents of Pickering Brook in the north of Canning. Last year I received a number of complaints from constituents about the placement of an NBN fixed wireless tower in Pickering Brook. It was very close to their homes, it was unsightly, and no-one had really consulted with them about the best place to put it. It was also close to a primary school. The residents, working as a collective, alongside the local shire, the Shire of Kalamunda, persuaded NBN Co to relocate the tower to a more suitable site at the Pickering Brook Sports Club—and, incidentally, if you go there for a beer on a Friday night, your phone goes dead, which is great for an MP but, for a lot of constituents, is unacceptable. So it is good to see more telecommunications infrastructure rolled out into the northern hills of Canning. The second example is the Dawesville Chemmart. Due to pharmacy location rules, the Dawesville Chemmart's application to dispense PBS medications was rejected. What was the problem? It was a mere 25 square metres of floor space—they fell 25 square metres short and, because of the rules, they were not allowed to dispense PBS medications. So the pharmacy started a petition, because a lot of retirees and pensioners in the area walk to that pharmacy, and they need those PBS medications listed. They gathered over 2,000 signatures and brought that matter to my attention, and, on behalf of the pharmacy's owners, I then lobbied the former health minister for a ministerial intervention, and she agreed to our request. The Dawesville Chemmart is now dispensing PBS medications and providing a good service to the community. In both these instances, change was driven by people at the grassroots level with the support of government.
The coalition has also been supporting civic society in Canning through the aptly named Stronger Communities Program. Thanks to this program, we have secured better sporting equipment for gymnastics and netball clubs in Roleystone and stadium lights for Mundijong Oval. I went down and watched the first game under lights with my little feller a couple of weeks back, at the Centrals. There has also been park equipment in Coolup and a community garden in Byford, just to name a couple. It is great to see those local projects supported by the coalition government.
It is also important to acknowledge and support volunteer organisations which bridge the gap between civic society and government to provide essential services. Recently, I visited this year's Canning recipients of the coalition's Volunteer Grants program. It is incredible to see how a little support from government towards fuel costs or administration goes a long way towards enriching the lives of everyday families, like those who are part of the Manta Rays Swim Team for disabled children in Mandurah. I also think of Riding for the Disabled in Orange Grove; I saw the delight on the faces of the children, some of whom struggle with a range of illnesses, as they got on the back of a horse and got therapy in that way. It was incredible to watch. So I am very proud that our government is supporting those little institutions which make up Australian society.
The bread and butter of every member in this House is constituent work, but, in the daily running of an office, we are at risk of forgetting why we help our constituents. I do not help constituents because I want their votes; I help them because it is my duty to help safeguard their interests. It is always a pleasure to help someone who is very clearly a Labor or a Greens supporter; that is our job.
Mr Entsch: Convert them!
Mr HASTIE: Convert them—exactly!
But one example of why I help constituents is the issue of youth suicide. It came to my attention last year that we had lost a number of young people in the Peel region tragically to suicide, all within the space of a few months. Out of the conversations I had with parents, principals, schoolkids and sporting clubs came the concern that there was nowhere in Canning for kids to get help. While there were already service providers working in this space—I think of the Peel Youth Medical Service and Peel Youth Services—it became evident that there was a shortfall when it came to young kids having immediate access to mental health care. So I was very encouraged when the Peel Youth Medical Service took it upon themselves, led by Eleanor Britton, to run a petition to get a headspace in Mandurah.
Mr Entsch: An excellent organisation.
Mr HASTIE: It is a very excellent organisation. The petition received over 3,400 signatures from the community in the space of only a month or so. On Thursday the health minister visited Canning to announce that it had been successful and that Mandurah would receive a headspace with the next 12 months. It was very encouraging. We had a great turnout, and I want to acknowledge that this was brought about not just through the federal government, but with the support of local state members and a host of leaders within the community.
Why is it important? This government cares about individuals, too. Last year a young man from the Peel Youth Medical Service got to meet the Prime Minister and share with him the story of his struggle with anxiety and depression. Last week, when the health minister arrived to announce the headspace, the same young man stood up and told the minister that briefing the Prime Minister about his struggle with anxiety was one of the greatest moments of his life. That is why we all do it: to see individual lives changed where we can.
I have moved round the electorate lately holding community meetings, and it is evident from my constituents' experiences that Canning needs better rail, road and telecommunications infrastructure. I think it was Bernard Salt in The Australian last year who said that Mandurah, which is at the centre of Canning, had a population growth since 2000 of something like 79 per cent. Canning has literally exploded in numbers. We have also added about 19,000 jobs in the same time span. There is a lot of growth, and telecommunications, roads and rail have struggled to keep up with that explosion of population growth. So one of my tasks is to go out and see where we can improve things. Last week I went up to Martin and visited constituents who were struggling to get a decent landline service from Telstra, struggling to get mobile phone coverage and are still waiting for the NBN. I have just received pictures of telephone lines held together by plastic bags in Martin. I have had calls about dangerously poor roads in Keysbrook, and I have met people in Byford and Lakelands who want to be able to catch a train to work. All these individual concerns are important, but together they tell a story about the people of Canning, what they care about and what they hope for for the future.
With their support and with the help of other constituents I am fighting for infrastructure that will help make a difference to the lives of people in Canning. I have gone on record recently that we want to see the train station in Byford funded from the $10 billion rail fund that was announced in the budget. We want to see the extension of the Tonkin Highway south to open up the interior to increase business opportunities for people. I want to see the Beacham Road freeway access off the Forrest Highway south into Austin Lakes. A lot of kids go to Austin Cove Baptist College, and it would reduce their travel time significantly if we could get a road direct into that development. It would also do a lot for the IGA there. I will be fighting for all these things over the next year.
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (16:02): I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018. This is not the worst budget that I have seen in my 21 years here. That prize probably goes to either the 1996 or 2014 budgets. But it is the most political budget I have seen in this place—a budget with one eye, of course, to the next Newspoll. People in my electorate and elsewhere are understandably asking me how Australia is a better place than it was four years ago—that is, since the election of first the Abbott government and, since then, the Turnbull government. They are also asking me, 'What does the Turnbull government stand for? What is its vision?' They ask why the Prime Minister never talks about the things he used to campaign for so energetically: the republic and climate change, for example. Where is the guy, they ask, who would regularly express compassion for asylum seekers? Where is the Malcolm Turnbull who used to campaign for same-sex marriage? I put to the House that they are fair questions. The member for Warringah was not and is not the most popular person in the electorate of Hunter. But people say to me, 'At least we knew what he stood for.'
The member for Warringah is a conservative, and I respect that. I consider myself a progressive, and I know he respects my position. But, having spent all of his adult life espousing progressive views, the Prime Minister no longer ever expresses those views. Of course, the true definition of a conservative is a person who restricts change—does not like change. A progressive, of course, is someone who believes that change should be a constant; that we can always do better tomorrow than we did yesterday or today. The history of human beings has been one of positive progressive advance in the main. Not all progress has been good but, in the main, it has been positive progressive advance. Tony Abbott and those like him are conservatives—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would just remind the member—
Mr FITZGIBBON: The member for Warringah and those like him are conservative. It is easy for conservatives to believe that things as they are okay and are not in need of change, because usually those people are in relatively privileged positions and do not need things to change. But many people in our communities do not enjoy privileged positions—indeed, many people in our communities live under the most difficult circumstances—and, for them, change is important. The hope of a better life is something that they need, and they need their politicians to be talking in a progressive way. They need their politicians to be thinking about how we might do things better, not just how we want things to stay the same.
But there is another dichotomy out there in the marketplace that I would like to reflect on, and that is the divide between conflict and cooperation. I consider myself a vocal champion of those who live outside our capital cities. I consider myself a voice for those who work the land. I believe in the private sector as the main driver of economic wealth and job creation in this country. But that does not make me anti-capital city. It does not make me anti-milk processor or anti-meat processor, and I am certainly not anti-public service. They too play an important role in our economy and therefore our community.
Strong regional economies need strong capital cities. Strong capital cities need strong regional economies. It is pretty simple. Everyone in this place should understand that or can surely appreciate that. To be strong, farmers need businesses which add value to their product—again, abattoirs or meat processors, for example—and the private sector and a stable economy require a predictable, steady regulatory regime and therefore a strong public sector. Returning to the land, farmers need a healthy environment and the environment relies on good farming methods to be healthy. The interdependence is obvious and should be very clear to all in this place.
It appeared to me that, at the turn of the century, the consensus was building—that we had learnt the lessons from political conflict; that as political leaders we had learnt the value of consensus. Economic liberalism seemed to enjoy almost universal support. Protectionism appeared consigned to the dustbin of history. The health of our environment seemed front and centre in every debate. And there appeared to be a more enlightened conversation about the environment and how a sustainable environment is critical to a sustainable economy and therefore crucial to sustainable communities. But, by 2009, that emerging consensus on the key issues in our communities was breaking down. Again, I return to the member for Warringah—not in such happy terms on this occasion—and when I believe the breakdown began in earnest. Sadly, the consensus remains under attack under the Turnbull government, particularly under the failed leadership of the Deputy Prime Minister. I say that genuinely reluctantly.
It seems to me that the Deputy Prime Minister wants a war with everyone. Those who worry about our environment, including those who want to ensure farm profitability is sustainable, are front and centre. Again, our farmers can be great custodians of our land, but with limited natural resources in this country we need to ensure that those resources are allocated efficiently and used in the most sustainable and efficient way possible. The Deputy Prime Minister likes to joke about snails and frogs—species that make vital contributions to our ecology. They are not a joke. These are very serious issues. Our biodiversity is very serious and critical to our economy and, therefore, to our communities. Of course, those who add value to our agricultural products are also important to our economy. We should not be promoting a war between them and our farmers and producers. We need to be adding value along the value chain and making sure that whole value chain is as efficient as is possible. There is a role for politicians in that process.
With respect to our public servants, we need to respect them, not sack them, when they stand up to the minister of the day. We need to respect their work and all that they do in our economy in an administrative sense. They are a critical cog in the wheel. We need to respect our capital cities and the role they play in our economy. Where would our regions be without strong capital cities? Where would our democracy be without a strong Canberra? It is the place of democracy and the place where our public servants give us effective and loyal advice. It is a one-stop shop where a farmer from Western Australia can visit and see a minister, a shadow minister, some backbenchers, the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, the National Farmers' Federation, the Cattle Council or whoever they might be looking for—the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, I might add.
Canberra is a function of decentralisation itself. The founding fathers very wisely found a spot where, in our capital city, no state would dominate, but democracy would be independent of those capital cities and those who run the country would be together, advising government when they were needing that advice or when they were seeking that advice. That is the Australian settlement. That is the way Canberra has worked for many years—since 1927, when the parliament first arrived here. That is how Canberra should continue to work.
Obviously, I have segued into the debate about decentralisation. Decentralisation can be a good thing, but our model should not be built on conflict. If a government agency can do its work just as effectively in a regional centre, there might be an argument for it doing so, but it is not just an end in itself. It cannot be done if the relocation is in any way a threat to the capacity of that organisation to do its work. That is the key to the current debate about the relocation of the APVMA and it is the key to the debate about decentralisation more generally. The government does not have a plan for decentralisation; the Deputy Prime Minister only has a plan to pork barrel, to boondoggle and to create the fiction that he can create jobs in the regions by relocating public service entities which remain unnamed, other than a couple that have been subject to debate.
This is a flawed philosophy, if it can be called that, and it is a disappointing one. It is not the political leadership our regions are crying out for. It is the role of our political leaders to provide leadership—to lead, not just for some of us but for all of us—not just those of us who live in the regions but those of us who live in the capital cities too and those who live in rural and remote Australia: all of us. Certainly, it is not for our politicians to take action for some at the expense of others, which has become the modus operandi of this Deputy Prime Minister.
We need to celebrate our regions, certainly. We need to talk them up. They are doing well. Of course, they can always do better and each and every one of us should do everything we can in this place to ensure that they always do. That is the nature of the progressive approach to politics. That is what I was talking about earlier: we can always do better. We do not want conflict and we do not want war. We cannot grow our regional economies by putting them at war with those who live in our capital cities. We are not independent of one another; we are one economy and we are one community. We need to lead in this place, to ensure that everything that we do in our regions is also of benefit to our capital cities and that everything we do in our capital cities is always also of benefit to our regions.
It is for our politicians—all of us in this place—to show that leadership: to show guidance and, where necessary, to educate people, because we are in a privileged position in this place. We have a wealth of information available to us as politicians. We have an education far better than any university can provide, by virtue of the privilege of sitting in this House or in the other place. From time to time, it is incumbent upon us to use the information we have available to us to bring people with us—to start again to rebuild that consensus.
But, sadly, the Deputy Prime Minister is determined on another course—to divide and conquer: to offset regions against cities and vice versa. He talks about our communities and our country as if they were two different places. Well, they are not two different places. Our environment, for example, is critical to both places, and it is wrong for the Deputy Prime Minister to constantly and regularly ridicule those who have concerns for our environment. And I am not just talking about greenies marching in the streets; I am talking about this country's scientists, who understand the importance of our biodiversity, the importance of protecting our environment and the importance of that to the sustainable profitability of our agriculture sector.
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (16:18): I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018 and the associated bills. In my view, it has been a very responsible budget and it builds on initiatives that the coalition government has built in the past and which it has certainly been very good at.
Just from the perspective of a broader overview, it is great to see that for the Future Fund, which was established by Peter Costello back in the Howard years, we have now given undertakings and protections through draw-downs to allow those assets to continue to grow. Of course this will guarantee the protection of superannuation payouts for many years and for future generations.
Again, not long after that there was the coalition initiative for the Medical Research Future Fund. Then in this budget we are setting aside some $10 billion to establish the infrastructure fund. Again, this is looking to the future. We are looking at building that up to $75 billion and, of course, that is going to be a great opportunity for us to be able to look at projects—roads, ports et cetera—into the future. Starting to put the money aside now makes a lot of sense.
I have to say that looking towards a surplus in 2020-21 is something I am pleasantly surprised with. Given the situation we found ourselves in when we came to government, it is something I thought we were highly unlikely to achieve. It is certainly refreshing, and I know that many of my constituents appreciate the fact that we are actually on the right trajectory. The fact that we will be paying for our liabilities for essential services et cetera by 2018 shows that we are certainly going in the right direction.
In regard to some of the more specific measures, I would like to touch on a few matters that are relevant to Leichardt. I will start with the banks. I have been a very vocal critic of what has been happening in banking over many years. Many of my constituents have been profoundly negatively impacted by banks. The banks have engineered defaults on businesses that have never missed a payment; they have engineered things to make sure that they sent them broke. So I do not have any issue at all with the new levy applying to the big four banks plus Macquarie, with liabilities greater than $100 billion. It certainly provides a more level playing field for the smaller banks and non-banking competitors.
I think we need to be reminded that since 2008 they have been receiving the benefit of the Australian government guarantee scheme. That is the government and the taxpayer putting themselves on the hook should there be an issue in that regard. This has given them a great commercial advantage, so it is little wonder that Australian banks are the second most profitable banks in the world. So I do not think it is unreasonable to call on some sort of dividend from those who have benefited the most from this. From my perspective, the levy is quite reasonable.
I also welcome the banking executive accountability scheme. If the banks start to feel the impact in their pocket of wrongdoing by their underlings, I am sure we will start to see that behaviour change that we have been calling for for so long. They should be held accountable for these things. I hope it is not just deregistration; I would like to see them hit in the hip pocket as well.
The establishment of the independent authority is a step in the right direction, but we need to make sure that we do not put the cap at $5 million. If individuals have been bankrupted through these unconscionable processes that we see from the banks—engineering of defaults et cetera—whether they have lost $100 million or $1 million they are just as broke. They cannot afford to go through lawyers. Believe you me, once the banks have put them through the system they cannot afford it. I have people in my electorate who have lost close to $200 million and 500 employees. At the end of the day, I have had to argue to get them on the age pension. Where are they going to be able to get the support to go through lawyers to be able to argue their case? They deserve that moment to be heard. So I think the threshold is inappropriate—$5 million is not enough. Secondly, we have to deal with the historic cases as well, not just current and future cases. There are people who have been suffering and battling for 10 years. The banks know that if they drag it on long enough the problem goes away—because people pass away and with them goes the capacity to argue their case. So we have to move quickly to deal with historical cases as well.
Insurance has been a major issue in my region of Northern Australia. It is still unresolved. It is something I have been battling for for a long time now. I welcome the $7.9 million that has been allocated to the ACCC to monitor insurance pricing in Far North Queensland. The fact that the Insurance Council of Australia does not like it suggests to me that it is good policy. But it is not enough; we need to go further. This is why I continue to push for either a catastrophe underwriting scheme or a mutual.
There also needs to be more done at state government level through strata legislation and the removal of stamp duty on renewals. Of course, we offered the Queensland government $12.5 million to work on engineering reports for strata which to date has not been used. There is also other work that the insurers themselves need to do rather than sit back and demand taxpayer-funded mitigation or mitigation funded by their policy holders. Even when it is done, there is absolutely no reflection in relation to a decrease in policy. So there is still a lot of work that needs to be done in that area. I note that Margaret Shaw, a wonderful advocate for this issue, has welcomed the ACC scrutiny and believes the money will be well spent, as long as the ACCC has the power to rectify extortion, should it occur. She said: 'The Insurance Council of Australia has proved the insurance industry is incapable of regulating itself, otherwise surely someone somewhere would have noticed a sudden mass of increases and acted on them. Now it's time for someone else to be responsible for keeping an eye on the insurance industry. Let's hope that the ACCC is up to it.' I agree 100 per cent with her observation of that.
On welfare payment reforms and supporting people in need, in my area we have one of the largest unemployment levels, particularly youth unemployment levels, in the country and yet we have one of the highest numbers of employment opportunities. We rely very heavily on backpackers to fill those roles. It is just that people do not want to travel away within 100 kilometres or, in the case of the tourism industry, do not want to be pouring coffees and things like that; they choose to do other things. I think reforms like trialling cashless welfare cards for people who fail random drug tests are a very positive step in so much as if somebody presents themselves for a job and they are on Newstart they should be ready to start work. If they present themselves and they are high then surely to goodness it is not unreasonable to expect them to get some support. By identifying the problem, we can then channel them into the right agencies. I do not think Newstart was designed to support an ongoing drug habit. I certainly strongly agree with the escalating financial penalties for that minority who consistently fail to meet their participation requirements. We have a situation where not one person last year incurred a financial penalty by failing to meet job seeking obligations such as applying for positions and turning up for Centrelink appointments. I think that these are the sorts of things that we need to take a harder stand on so that they can be encouraged to take what jobs are available at the time.
I was very pleased to see the $27 million of round 3 Stronger Communities Program grants offering grants of $5,000 to $20,000 to local organisations for small infrastructure projects. It was very well received in my electorate. In rounds 1 and 2 we saw great outcomes including, in my region: a bus for the Bamaga dance troupe up in the tip of Cape York, new yards for Lakeland Horse Sports, various men's sheds equipment, sporting infrastructure, solar panels for the West Cairns Bowls Club and shade sales for the Cooktown race course et cetera. Those are amazing outcomes and, of course, for every dollar spent there was at least a dollar spent by that community group to match, so it was great leverage. At the bigger end, the new $472 million Regional Growth Fund will invest in transformational projects that will unlock the potential for our regions, with government investment of $10 million and upwards, and $200 million of this funding will increase our commitment to the Building Better Regions Fund. In my region there were 21 applications in round 1, and I look forward to hearing about and working with the successful proponents for round 2 projects.
On infrastructure, the Cape York Region Package got $54 million, which was great. We will see the sealing of the Peninsula Developmental Road in my lifetime—something I would have said was not achievable 10 years ago. There is $70 million being spent in 2017-18 on various Bruce Highway upgrade measures in North and Far North Queensland, including $6.2 million on the Robert Road to Foster Road upgrade. Only 12 kilometres of the Bruce Highway falls within Leichhardt, but the upgrades over the other 1,688 kilometres certainly benefit my region. Of course, our local councils will welcome the unfreezing of indexation on the financial assistance grants, and they will also benefit from the Roads to Recovery funding, with 14 councils sharing something like $5.7 million in the next financial year.
There was also benefit for our hardworking small business community, with the extension of the $20,000 instant asset write-off for a further 12 months, to 30 June 2018, and the turnover threshold for small businesses being lifted to $10 million. That will certainly enable a lot more small businesses in my region to invest in their growth, increase productivity and also improve their cash flow.
The budget also included a $300 million incentive for state and territory governments to remove unnecessary regulatory barriers. I think that we have led the way there from a federal perspective, with some $5.8 billion of cuts to red tape. It is certainly not unreasonable for the states and territories to do their bit and for us to offer them some incentive as well.
It was great also from the seniors perspective. I really supported the reinstatement of pensioner concession cards for 92,000 senior Australians. This was something that I thought it was absolutely essential that we do, as was permanently extending funding for homelessness, another significant issue. This is certainly an issue in my area.
With regard to the NDIS, we have seen the criticism, and we saw the Medicare scare campaign at the last election. I think we are guaranteeing Medicare. With the Medicare Guarantee Fund, which will pay only for Medicare and for medicines, we can ensure that service is not going to be reduced and more medicines will end up on the PBS, hopefully putting that scare to bed once and for all.
Fully funding the NDIS is another major initiative. I hear criticism from people earning about $22,000. I think we need to put it into perspective: if you are earning $22,000, you are currently paying $66 for your Medicare levy, and in 2019 you will be paying $99. This is still allowing a contribution, which is great, but if you are on $100,000 a year your contribution at the moment is $2,000, and it will go up to $2,500—again, proportional to your contribution.
The school funding, of course, was major. Every single school in my area benefited from it, some to the extent of tens of millions of dollars of additional funding.
So I think the budget that we have delivered has been overwhelmingly successful in my electorate. It has been very strongly supported by the majority within my community. I think it is a fair budget, it will grow the community, and it will ensure that northerners have access to services that they rely on. I think it maps the way for a credible balancing of our budget. (Time expired)
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (16:33): Fairness is not just a slogan. Fairness is not something that you can test in focus groups. That is not what fairness is. Fairness is not the answer to shore up this Prime Minister's leadership of the Liberal Party. Fairness is absolutely at the heart of what Australians understand to be the fair go. It means a government that is willing to invest in people, to pursue equal opportunity and to look after the most vulnerable people in our society.
Fairness is actually something you have to believe in. If you really believe in it then you will look at the detail in this budget and conclude that this budget is unfair. I will go through that detail here today. It is unfair because this budget gives tax cuts to millionaires and big businesses and tax rises to low- and middle-income families. The budget is unfair because of the cuts to schools and TAFE. It is unfair because it asks young people to pay more to go to university. It is unfair because it does not address housing affordability. It is unfair because it still contains cuts to families and pensioners. It is unfair because it contains unfair zombie cuts, including the plan to increase the pension age to 70.
For nearly a decade now the key economic debate of our time has been between austerity and inclusive growth; between harsh budget cuts on the one hand and social investment on the other; between trickle-down economics and a model of economic growth that enables everyone to fulfil their potential. This really has been the core economic debate around the world since the global financial crisis. Conservatives, of course, argue that the only way to save ourselves from the so-called debt and deficit disaster is to end what they call the age of entitlement. The conservatives argue that we are a nation of leaners and lifters, and that the only way we can all be better off is to give the big end of town a massive $65 billion handout and that wealth will somehow trickle down and eventually result in a small wage rise of $2 a day in 20 years time. That is the Liberal Party's logic.
Labor, on the other hand, have always shown that we believe in fairness—we do not just talk about it. We know that wages growth in Australia is at record lows and that the minimum wage has been declining as a proportion of average wages over the last 20 years. We do not want to see Australia go down the American road of the working poor. We do not want to see Sunday penalty rates cut. Of course we believe in budget repair that is fair but, more importantly, we believe in inclusive growth. We believe that without good health care, good schools and good universities and TAFEs we cannot be competitive because not all Australians will be able to fulfil their potential. Investing in human capital means investing in Australia's greatest resource—our people.
Here in 2017 we have a Liberal government led by this Prime Minister that wants to rebrand himself. Somehow, all of a sudden, we are meant to believe that the Liberals care about fairness. I am not buying that, and nor are the Australian people. Australians see through this fake Prime Minister, who actually does not believe in anything. Australians ultimately understand that contained in the 2017 budget are tax cuts for the top end of town and for multinationals, and a tax hike for battlers. Australians can see more cuts to family tax benefits and cuts to pensions with the axing of the energy supplement. What this means in real dollars is a cut of $365 a year for a single pensioner—a cut to 1.7 million Australian pensioners and unemployed people. Of course, it would not be a Liberal budget if it did not contain some nasties for pensioners. They always preference the top end of town over people who work and struggle to make ends meet.
Many of the 2014 zombie cuts have been temporarily removed from this year's budget. They include cuts to paid parental leave, the five-week wait for Newstart, cuts to young people between the ages of 22 and 24 by pushing them off Newstart onto the lower youth allowance—a cut that would have seen around $48 a week taken from these young people—and scrapping the pensioner education supplement and the education entry payment. How do we know that these cuts are only temporarily removed from this budget? Because the Prime Minister himself said that the unfair zombie cuts 'had merit'. The Prime Minister said:
Well it’s not a question of good or bad. I mean, they were measures that we thought, which we believed had merit.
These were unfair cuts to families, unfair cuts to pensioners, unfair cuts to young job seekers. Let us not forget that, in 2014, the now Prime Minister said, and I quote him again:
I support introducing co-payments for general practitioner pathology and diagnostic imaging services in the Medicare Benefits Schedule. I support the reforms to higher education. I support the changes to family payment reform.
I just remind the Prime Minister that those changes to family payment reform that he said he supported were an $8½ billion cut to family tax benefits.
Just to give one example of one type of family what those cuts would have meant, a family of $65,000 would have lost $6,000 a year. That is how much worse off they would have been. Every single Liberal and National Party member voted for those cuts. This Prime Minister was there when the decision was made to cut pension indexation in the 2014 budget—a cut that would have left pensioners around $80 a week worse off over a decade. This Prime Minister supported those measures. He now says those measures have merit—yet, again, an indication that he has no idea of what fairness means.
I do want to speak tonight about the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It is a landmark Labor reform; a reform that is very, very dear to my heart. As the minister responsible for introducing the National Disability Insurance Scheme in the former Labor government, I do understand just how important this reform is. I know that the old system of disability support in this country is broken and is failing people with disability and their families. So no-one is more committed to the successful rollout of the NDIS than I am. I do acknowledge the fact that the government has continued the rollout of the NDIS in recent years. And it has concluded a number of bilateral agreements with the states on the rollout of the scheme.
But it has been an absolute disgrace that this government has undermined the funding security of the National Disability Insurance Scheme over these last three years. I want to make it absolutely crystal clear to people with disability and to their families and carers that the future of the NDIS is secure. The NDIS is secure. I want to make it clear that Australians with disabilities are too important for this government to play political games with. When the government claims that the NDIS is at risk because of funding, it, of course, causes unnecessary concern amongst people with disability, their families and carers. It is not right and it is, certainly, not fair. We of course can disagree on many, many issues, but we should not fight about the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It is too important.
The government claim that Labor, when we were in government, did not make appropriate provision through various savings to pay for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This is just not true. The government acknowledge that Labor did increase the Medicare levy, but, of course, they choose to ignore many other tough savings decisions that were made. They ignore changes to the private health insurance rebate, indexation of tobacco excise, import duties and fringe benefits concessions. The money from these savings is in the budget. Combined, this is enough money to pay for the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
Labor rejects the government's attempts to link the proposed increase to the Medicare levy with the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We reject that link just like we rejected the government's early attempt to link a whole range of other unfair cuts to the funding of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and to, effectively, hold the National Disability Insurance Scheme and people with disability to ransom with these unfair cuts. So I just want to say again, particularly to people with disability, that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is secure. Its funding is secure. It is fully funded. It was fully funded by Labor. It continues to be fully funded. What we should all be concentrating on now is the successful rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme in the interests of people with disability.
As for families, I am sorry to say there are more cuts to family tax benefits in this budget. Around 100,000 families will have their family tax benefits cut. So let's just have a look at what the size of these cuts will be. A family on a combined household income of $105,000 and with two children in high school will be around $1,700 worse off on 1 July 2018. That is how much those families will lose from this budget. This cut follows another decision by this government to freeze the rate of family tax benefits, which means that those benefits will not keep up with prices. A typical family with two young children will be around $440 worse off in 2018-19 as a result of this Liberal government's freeze on family tax benefit rates. This cut was originally in the government's horror 2014 budget. It was removed in 2015 after the legislation was defeated in the Senate. The government then rushed it back into the parliament this year—yet further evidence that you cannot believe anything this government says. If they say a cut is out of the budget, the next year back it comes.
There are many other cuts in this budget that I do not have time to refer to tonight, and many of them are very, very controversial. We will have further opportunities to discuss them when the specific legislation for them is brought in. There are so many changes in this budget that will hurt millions of Australians, while, at the same time, it gives a tax cut to the top end of town. That is why this budget is not fair.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (16:47): I am very pleased to be speaking on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-18 and related bills and supporting the government's budget. Just as she leaves the chamber, I refer to some of the things that the member for Jagajaga raised, particularly her indignant response to the view that the NDIS was not fully funded in the past by her government. Just repeating something that is not true often enough does not make it true, Member for Jagajaga; in fact, it reinforces the misleading statement in the first place. What you say could be given some weight if you could find a single reputable economist who would back that point of view, if you could find anyone in the free press who writes on economic and parliamentary government matters to agree with that point of view or if you could find anyone in the NDIS sector, in the disability sector, who agrees with that point of view. There is no support for that point of view. It is widely known that the NDIS was not properly funded. There was a black hole, and this government has had to face up to that issue and deal with it, just as we have had to deal with other issues that we do not particularly like.
The failure of our savings measures getting through the Senate has been a great frustration to the government. We do not want to raise taxes. We want to make Australia a low tax society. Yet we are faced with a situation where we can either govern responsibly or keep plunging Australia further and further into debt, not only placing that debt upon future generations but threatening the very basis on which we operate in this economic world—and that is our AAA credit rating. This rating not only gives great benefit to the Australian government; it also gives great benefit to Australian businesses. All of those things are important and they cannot be glossed over. So we have taken the responsible path and legislated for some cuts to various government payments but also, to balance the budget, to raise some extra taxes, most notably the levy on banks and, of course, the ½ per cent increase in the Medicare levy. It is responsible and pragmatic government, and that is what Australians expect governments to do: to govern responsibly and pragmatically.
The NDIS, as a result of the legislation that will be introduced in this House, I presume, in the next day or so, will be fully funded, as long as enough people in the Senate agree with the government's point of view. I certainly hope that will be the case, because that is what the sector is calling for.
We have addressed the issue of the blowout in demand on the higher education budget by making adjustments to HECS. This is, once again, in response to something that happened under the former government, which uncapped university places. Of course, this is an unrestricted line of government funding: the more students in university, the more the taxpayer will pay. It is good to have people in university—there is no argument from this government—but there are considerable benefits that come to those people that complete university degrees, so we have asked them for a slightly higher contribution. But they can borrow every cent, and if they never earn above a certain level, $42,000 a year, they will never pay it back—the best loan of their life.
Most significantly, we have delivered the true Gonski. When we talk about the unfairness of budgets that come from the other side, what is unfair from their point of view is that we have delivered on the things that they only wished they could do. We have actually done them. This is what really sticks in their craw: we have actually done what they wanted to do but were unable to deliver. David Gonski has come on board and said this is the true Gonski—this is true needs-based funding. It is absolutely demonstrated that 99 per cent of schools in Australia will be better off. We are ironing out the glitches and getting rid of the 27 different secret agreements that were made around Australia, and we are still on track to balance the budget by 2021. It is responsible management.
From a localised point of view, there are quite a few issues that cut across my electorate. Coming from an electorate like Grey means there are not many issues in this place that do not influence us one way or another. Specifically, I welcome the commitment from the government of $110 million for the solar thermal storage project in Port Augusta. This is a project that I have been working very hard to land for Port August for quite some considerable amount of time, and I was very pleased in the election period to be able to announce that it was the government's intention to back a solar thermal project in Port Augusta. The $110 million low-interest loan specifically delivers on that process, and I will be looking forward to it. There are two main contenders at this stage, it must be said, vying to win the majority of that money.
The government has also made a commitment to a study of pumped hydro in the Port Augusta region. This is an artificial hydro system, if you like, but it provides the one thing that South Australia really desperately needs in our electricity market at the moment, and that is storage. The state government continues to approve new renewable energy projects around the state, and I support renewable energy, but I do not support any new projects unless they include storage. Storage is the golden issue. In fact, it is the technology that we have a chance of leading the world in, because South Australia, unfortunately, is the most needy state in the world for energy storage at the moment. Delivering about 41 per cent of our electricity by renewable means, which has effectively destroyed the baseload generators' business case, means that in fact our electricity grid is so unstable at the moment that we have a higher demand for storage than any other economy in the world.
I am very pleased to provide the information to my local councils—I have 23 of them—that the freeze on the financial assistance grants indexation from the Commonwealth has been lifted. This is something that councils have been lobbying for, long and hard, for quite some time. The savings have been made in those areas, and they are structural now, but the freeze has been lifted, so they can expect those payments to increase in the future.
Especially pleasing from a South Australian point of view is the reinstatement for two years of the supplementary local road funding program—a sum of $20 million per year for the two years. This is a program that had its roots right back in the early and middle years of the Howard government. It was seen that the formula that distributed funds for local roads meant a deficiency in South Australia, where we were receiving around 5½ per cent of the funds nationally but had about 7½ per cent of the population and 11 per cent of the road length, so a special payment was made. Unfortunately, the last budget delivered by the Labor government made no future commitment to this program and so there was no new decision made by the incoming government, that was left, obviously, with huge debts and deficits to deal with. The fund just expired, but that left South Australian councils exposed. I thank the member for Barker and the member for Boothby, in particular, for their staunch efforts in lobbying for this money to come to South Australian councils and to even things up a bit.
The doctors in my electorate have been lobbying hard and long to remove the freeze that was originally put in place by the Labor government on the Medicare payments. Once again, this is an area where there has now been a saving, and it is a saving which has become institutionalised—it is built into the system. So the time is right to lift that freeze. But let me say in its defence that we had been told repeatedly that doctors would desert bulk-billing. Of course, through this entire period the rates have tended to rise, but I think they have gone about as far as they can go so it is right and proper that the freeze should be lifted.
In the same area, in pharmacy: under the Sixth Pharmacy Agreement there was an arrangement made that, should prescription numbers fall, the Commonwealth would bear some of the strain with the pharmacists. That has been honoured, and the result of our decisions in pharmacy will lead to an extra $1.8 billion being cut away from the cost of medication for the people of Australia and to the registration of new and developmental drugs. So there have been great wins there.
I am very pleased to be able to tell the people of Grey that the government is investing $472 million in a Regional Growth Fund. Most importantly, that leads to another $200 million into the Building Better Regions Fund. Building Better Regions has superseded Building Stronger Regions. It is something that has been very keenly sought after in Grey and we have been quite successful in attracting funding. The last two rounds brought over $25 million into the electorate. So we are very pleased, of course, that that fund will continue and that we will be able to bid from those funds for the very good projects that come out of a diverse and interesting electorate like Grey. There is also another $272 million going into a major projects fund for projects that need an injection of over $10 million. I am sure we will see some very good projects proposed out of the Grey electorate to focus on that money as well.
I had a significant number of letters from people who work in the Meals on Wheels organisations. They were concerned about their future funding, and of course they are very pleased that this budget confirms the Commonwealth's ongoing commitment in this area, as it does with a number of other support packages and the Regional Assessment Service.
I must say that business has warmly welcomed the new tax rates—the reduction in company tax rates which come into effect from 1 July—and the recognition that small businesses are not necessarily those with turnovers of just under $2 million. Those categories will rise to $10 million and then eventually to $15 million in 2018-19. Once again, that is a very popular decision with businesses out there. Many have reported to me that they have used it already, that they intend to keep using it and that it has led to extra investment, which leads to extra production and better outcomes for Australia all the way round.
There are also a few reforms in the social services area. As the federal representative of Ceduna, it gives me great pleasure that Ceduna was the first town in Australia to step up to the plate and say that it was willing to trial the cashless debit card. That trial is going exceedingly well. I told the people of Ceduna right at the beginning of the process, 'It is highly likely that the eyes of Australia will turn towards you and look for leadership.' They supplied that leadership and now, after developing that model in Ceduna and having ironed out a few of the glitches and bugs around it, we are looking to extend it to a further two communities across Australia. Within my electorate, at least one has already expressed great interest, but I know that we may be joining a very long line.
It is very interesting that the cashless debit card is now designated to be used in managing welfare difficulties in other areas—and, of course, in this area I am talking to the imminent drug testing of those who are repeat failures in showing up for their work commitments or consultation commitments with job service providers and Centrelink. There will be those who will say, 'You're picking on the vulnerable,' and 'They take drugs for all kinds of reasons,' but one thing we do know is that, when someone starts down the trail of taking drugs, particularly with some of the very addictive and dangerous drugs like ice, we not only do the country a tremendous favour but we also do them an enormous favour if we become involved, intervene and save them from themselves and try to reroute their lives and provide new direction. This drug testing will identify those people and then we can apply ourselves to making sure that they do not go further down that route, because it not only affects them but also their families. And we know that intergenerational disadvantage is just that: it is intergenerational.
All of those things in the budget are very good. I am very proud of the budget. It has been very well received in my electorate, and I look forward to continuing to speak about it over the next few weeks and months.
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (17:02): I too join my colleagues in rising to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018, which of course is the bill that largely enacts the government's budget measures. Make no mistake: this is not a budget that is designed for all Australians or to help all Australians; it is a budget to try to help the political fortunes of a Prime Minister. It has unfairness at its core, delivering a tax cut for millionaires—a $65 billion tax cut—and a tax hike for every working Australian. How is that fair?
And, in the health portfolio, it is a complete and utter insult. The government would have you believe that the past three years were all imagined—that they did not actually happen. Their attacks on Medicare, their cuts to public hospitals, their cuts to the patient rebate to go and see GPs and specialists and their attempts to increase the cost of medicines for all Australians somehow did not really exist—they are no longer there and somehow or other we have had a complete and utter reset. Frankly, it is a desperate attempt at window-dressing the exact same cuts that the government took to the election.
Only this government could keep the freeze in place for years and think that is fair. Only this government could cut billions of dollars from Medicare and structurally embed that in their forward estimates and somehow think that is fair. That is exactly what this budget does. It locks in billions of dollars of cuts to Medicare—cuts that make our healthcare system less affordable and less able to be accessed by people. The minister thinks that, by making up a national health plan—four pillars—that somehow or other he will seem to get over what has been a disastrous attempt of this government to decimate our universal health insurance scheme. This minister is lots of spin and not a lot of substance.
The former Prime Minister put in place the government's Medicare freeze in December 2014, and it was the current Prime Minister who came up with the genius idea to extend it right the way out until 2020. While this freeze has been in place we have seen the impacts on bulk-billing, with GPs saying they can no longer afford to bulk-bill all patients and out-of-pocket costs soaring. The previous member tried to say that bulk-billing rates are going up. Of course, bulk-billing rates include pathology and a range of other MBS items, but when you look at item No. 23, which is the item number for GPs, you will see that since the election GP bulk-billing has been going down. For years, GPs, specialists and health experts have been sending a very clear message to this government: the freeze is hurting now and it should have been dropped a long time ago. This is what the AMA president said during the election:
We know there are some GPs that are changing their billing practices and that commences today, on July 1. The reality is that there are a lot of GPs who decided they could probably take the hit for a couple of years but they are saying enough’s enough.
That is the damage that has been embedded in Medicare under a Liberal government. And still, after all of this evidence, did the government go and drop the freeze immediately? No, they did not. Australians will still have to wait years until the freeze on the patient rebate is finally dropped. These are not the actions of a government that understands the impact of its cuts to health, and listens. These are the actions of a government that wants to pay lip-service to the idea of doing something, but cannot bring themselves to actually do it until just before a federal election. We know the impact the freeze is having on access to GPs, with bulk-billing for GPs dropping since the election and out-of-pocket costs skyrocketing.
The impact is not just in the GP waiting room; the freeze also impacts Australians who need specialist care. In the past 12 months, 40 per cent of Australians needed to see a specialist. That is around 7.4 million Australians who need to see a specialist each year, but more than 600,000 Australians delay seeing a specialist at least once because of cost, with those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds more likely to delay because of cost. Keeping the freeze in place continues the impact on Australia's sickest and most vulnerable patients, such as people undergoing oncology treatment, children needing paediatric care and people undergoing dialysis.
The decision in the budget to keep the freeze in place for years comes when out-of-pocket costs for specialists have skyrocketed. Only last week, new data showed that, on average, patients are paying an extra $24 out of their own pockets every time they visit a specialist, up 42 per cent since the government introduced their freeze in December 2014. Every single day the government's freeze continues is another day that Australians pay more for their vital health care.
The budget is also woefully inadequate when it comes to funding our hospitals. It was a bitter disappointment for our public hospitals that the government did not allocate any additional funding to address the blowout in elective surgery wait times or the queues in our emergency departments. Our public hospitals are in crisis under this government. Elective surgery waiting times are now the worst they have been since records began being kept in 2001. Patients presenting to emergency departments requiring urgent medical attention are being left in emergency departments for longer. In the last financial year, only 67 per cent of emergency department patients classified as urgent were seen within the recommended 30 minutes. Critically, public hospital capacity is not keeping pace with population growth and it is not increasing to meet the demand for services. And yet, the government's budget has done absolutely nothing to address this—nothing for elective surgery and nothing for our straining emergency departments. Not only that, the government has now, from 2021, changed the funding formula for public hospitals, reverting back to the levels set in the disastrous 2014 budget, without a new agreement. That is what the budget says is going to be adequate for public hospital funding post-2020.
Beyond the freeze and the failure to invest properly in our public hospitals, there are some measures which I believe have finally been taken off the table, for now. The health zombie measures, the cuts to Medicare safety nets and the increase in PBS co-payments for both concessional and general patients have been scrapped, for now. That is a good step, although the government has lamented that it was 'regrettable that they had to be dropped'. The Prime Minister said that the government believed the measures had merit, and the Minister for Social Services said that they were largely reasonable efforts to make savings. Hiking the cost of vital medicines for every Australian is not reasonable, nor is it fair. Leaving Australians facing huge out-of-pocket expenses when they are going through stressful medical times in their lives is not reasonable or fair. These cuts should never have been on the table in the first place. Labor has fought against these unfair measures because we know the impact they would have had on Australians who could least afford it. But be in no doubt: if the government gets its chance, if it has the Senate that it wants, these cuts will be back on the table.
The government has also finally scrapped its plans to cut the bulk-billing incentive for pathology and diagnostic imaging. Again, it is not because they wanted to scrap these cuts, but because they could not get the political support to get it through the Senate. We were consistent in our approach: we would disallow those regulations when they came into the Senate. We are pleased to see that they will now not see the light of day in this parliament, but I expect they will be pushed up again at some point.
During the election the government signed a multitude of rushed deals, basically to get itself out of political trouble in the middle of an election campaign. It signed those deals with Pathology Australia and the Diagnostic Imaging Association. It has broken both of those deals. These deals were nothing more than a cynical ploy to get them through the election, proved by the fact that they have now been dumped in this budget. As these dumped deals show, when it comes to this government honouring commitments, agreements or compacts, they are not worth the paper they are written on. The minister's grandstanding about agreements he has put in place with various health stakeholders is absolutely worthless. If groups think that the minister or this government will not come at them again if we get to another budget—if we do not have an election before them—they are kidding themselves. The signing of these agreements shows the utter fatigue and resignation which has settled across the health sector after being treated with complete contempt by the Liberal government. It has been a long fight against measures like the freeze, the hospital cuts and the various zombie measures. That fight is not over. It has been a long fight, with little changing along the way. A new Prime Minister and an election did not trigger any change at all. Groups were desperate for any progress, even if an inferior option was put on the table. Behind these pieces of paper individual GPs, medical practitioners and specialists are furious that the freeze still remains in place. They are furious that they have been dealt an inferior deal, and their patience will continue to pay. They are raising those concerns at every single meeting that I have with them. Labor has heard this feedback, and we will continue to fight against the freeze until it is over once and for all. This freeze is all of this government's making, and it has been patients who have paid every day and will continue to pay every day until it is lifted.
If you want to see why the government cannot be trusted with Medicare, you only have to look at their track record of cuts and neglect. The government knows that it cannot be trusted on Medicare, so much that it has now had to legislate to try and say, 'We won't touch Medicare—we will legislate to guarantee it.' Only a government that cannot trust itself to keep its hands off Medicare would try and come up with something like the Medicare Guarantee Fund to paper over what it has done over the last three years. If you cannot trust yourself, you have to legislate to try and keep your hands out of the piggyback. But does the fund guarantee that the government will not cut Medicare? No, it does not. Does the fund guarantee that the government will keep its hands off public hospitals, which are fundamental part of Medicare? No, it does not. Does the fund guarantee that the money the government is saving through PBS price disclosure arrangements or the deal it has done with Medicines Australia or the generics industry will be reinvested into new medicines? No, the fund does not. As former health secretary, Stephen Duckett, says:
The Medicare Guarantee Fund—
I am going to call it the 'so-called Medicare Guarantee Fund'—
is nothing more than a rebadging exercise: it changes the badge on a policy in the hope people might think it is a new policy.
It is not. Once again, this is another example of a desperate smoke-and-mirrors attempt to distract from the fact that this government has cut billions of dollars out of Medicare and is continuing to prop up its budget with those cuts.
Without a doubt, one of the biggest blows in the budget was the failure to seriously invest in prevention. This is one area we had big hopes for. After all, the Prime Minister said at the start of February:
In 2017, a new focus on preventive health will give people the right tools and information to live active and healthy lives.
What a disappointment this budget was. How quickly things change. Of course, this government is known for its abolition of the National Preventive Health Agency, a $368 million cut. They also cut the National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health. They also cut around $600 million from the Health Flexible Funds, reducing the capacity of health promotion organisations around the country. It has been a massive blow for public health groups who were hoping the Prime Minister would live up to his word and actually take action on prevention.
On a final note, in the very brief time I have left, as the member for Ballarat I want to acknowledge the budget and its impact on our region. The government's cut of $22 billion from Australian schools—an average of $2.4 million from each school, or 22,000 teachers—will have a severe impact on my area. I have spoken to the local Catholic education office and they tell me firsthand that the impact will see fee rises at Catholic primary schools across my electorate. With 25 per cent of parents choosing Catholic education in my electorate, that is a massive impost on parents.
Once again, Ballarat has also missed out when it comes to major infrastructure projects—there were none. We had many ready to go. There was the waste-to-energy projects in Ballarat and Hepburn Shire; the Ballarat sports and events centre, which we are still hoping against hope the government will actually eventually fund; and the racecourse reserve in Bacchus Marsh. None of these were funded in the budget. Again, it was something we had hoped to see—we hoped that we would get some of this funding.
It has been a bad budget for the electorate of Ballarat and it is a bad budget for the health of Australians. The budget does not lie. Billions are being cut from Medicare. It is all smoke— (Time expired)
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (17:17): I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018. As a regional MP, one of the important aspects of the 2017-18 budget is the government's commitment to investing in regional Australia. We are doing that by delivering infrastructure which will drive economic growth and secure more and better-paying jobs. It is important that the benefits of economic growth are shared across the country and in communities just like my electorate of Hinkler. There are a number of programs announced by the Treasurer on 9 May which I believe are worth exploring in my electorate.
The National Rail Program, of course, is one. The coalition government will invest some $10 billion over the next decade for the National Rail Program. This program will fund transformational rail projects so people can move around our cities and regions more efficiently and better connect our cities, suburbs and surrounding regional areas. This $10 billion rail investment will reduce the burden on Australian roads, provide more reliable transport networks and support our efforts to decentralise our economy and grow regional Australia.
Last week I met with state and local government representatives to discuss the possibility of developing the inland rail through to the Port of Bundaberg, which can then be developed as a container facility. We need ambition in this. The Port of Bundaberg exports raw sugar, molasses, wood pellets and silica sand, however its throughput on average is only 254,000 tonnes a year for the last five years. In comparison to somewhere like Gladstone Ports, which does almost 100 million tonnes of coal—just one product—obviously there is room for a potential expansion.
In February this year, the Queensland government Coordinator-General declared the Bundaberg State Development Area. The 6,067-hectare SDA includes land on the eastern side of the Burnett River, near the Port of Bundaberg, including surrounding port-related industrial uses, and land on the western side of the Burnett River predominantly used for sugarcane cultivation and rural landholdings. According to the Coordinator-General:
The Bundaberg SDA was established in response to a growing demand for land for port-related and industrial activities around the Port of Bundaberg. The Bundaberg SDA could help facilitate economic growth and employment opportunities in the Bundaberg and Wide Bay Burnett regions.
The $19.8 million, 28-kilometre Bundaberg Port Gas Pipeline was completed by Australian Gas Networks earlier this year and has opened up even more opportunities at the port. Without that gas pipeline, the Knauf plasterboard-manufacturing plant would not have become a reality. This $70 million facility is nearing completion and is expected to create around 70 permanent jobs. It will be the company's third facility in Australia, with manufacturing plants also in Sydney and Melbourne. The project will include gypsum-handling and processing facilities to support plasterboard production and for the sale of gypsum to our large agricultural sector. As many of my colleagues know, the Bundaberg region is one of the largest horticultural producing areas in Australia. For us, as the biggest producer of heavy vegetables, to have a company directly import lime and make it into pelletised product—at a much-reduced cost, of course—right there on our doorstep will be of great benefit to our local growers. While there has been a lot of talk about opportunities, I am calling on the state and local governments to fight for significant expansion, which will result in jobs. We must absolutely continue to build our local economy.
I was very pleased to see in the budget funding of $1.295 million for improvements to five road black spots in Hinkler—three in Bundaberg and two in Hervey Bay. The coalition government is continuing to fund the Black Spot Program, with $684½ million from 2013-14 to 2020-21 so it can continue to deliver safety improvements such as safety barriers and street lighting to sections of dangerous roads that have a crash history. Already there have been a number of local black spots identified in Hinkler which have received funding through this program: $536,500 to install a roundabout at the intersection of Torquay Terrace and Bideford Street in Torquay, and $410,000 for the intersection of Scotland Street, Eastgate Street and Steindl Street at Bundaberg East to upgrade the roundabout and improve signage, line marking and bike lanes, just to name two. Since I was elected in 2013, more than $8 million has been invested in making road black spots safe for the motorists of my electorate.
A local project nearing completion is the $1.4 million extension of Kay McDuff Drive through the ring road in Bundaberg. This is funded through the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program. Once complete, the extension will not only direct traffic away from one of the largest high schools in the district but allow easier access for 25-metre B-doubles to the industrial area. More than 6,200 vehicles, including 320 heavy vehicles, use the current route every single day, and this extension will make the road safer for the 1,500 students of the nearby school and provide direct access to the freight network. This project is also expected to deliver vehicle savings of some $15 million over 25 years.
The coalition government has already invested almost $30 million in upgrades of the 90-kilometre stretch of the Bruce Highway which runs through my electorate. These upgrades include an $8 million upgrade to the three intersections near Childers, $6 million for an overtaking lane north of Howard, $4½ million to widen the four-kilometre stretch near Adies Road at Apple Tree Creek, and $7.1 million for widening of the highway for 2.2 kilometres near the Wongi State Forest south of Torbanlea. In Queensland, the government is providing $844 million for new Bruce Highway projects. These will benefit motorists that travel both north and south of the electorate for business or leisure, as well as ensuring freight has a flood-proof and reliable route to market.
Unfortunately, getting projects off the ground in Queensland has been hampered by a state Labor government. On more than one occasion, the federal government has made funding available and it seems like the state government want to avoid that at all costs. A prime example is the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund. The feasibility study component of the project agreement for the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund clearly sets out that the federal government will make annual payments for projects on advice from the Queensland government that the agreed milestone has been met, yet the Queensland government was claiming the successful proponents did not know the funding was provided in this way. Under the agreement, the state or territory government is the project proponent, not the councils, not-for-profits or industry associations. The agreement is intended to support state and territory governments to deliver key water infrastructure projects, which is their responsibility, and to help them to attract co-investment from project partners. In the end, the Queensland government dragged its heels for seven months before finally submitting a project delivery schedule for feasibility studies, two of which directly affect my electorate.
And we want to get on with the job of delivering water infrastructure needs in our regions and delivering our election commitments, which will ultimately provide long-term jobs, because water is wealth in this country, Mr Deputy Speaker Irons, as I am sure you are aware. So, I hope that the Queensland government can get its act together—although, I have to say, I am not that confident. In terms of local infrastructure, a new initiative announced in the budget, which again shows the government's commitment to regional Australia, is the Regional Growth Fund. This fund will invest $272 million to provide grants of $10 million or more for major transformational projects which support long-term economic growth and create jobs in Australia's regions. While small infrastructure projects are very important for regional communities to upgrade and improve facilities, in some regions larger infrastructure investment is needed to unlock significant economic potential and to transform a local region.
The government has also extended the Building Better Regions Fund for four years from 2017-18, with an additional $200 million investment. This fund will be targeted at regional communities, just like my electorate of Hinkler, and not capital cities. The first round of BBRF is being assessed right now, but the second round will again consider local infrastructure projects that will drive economic growth, create jobs and build strong regional communities. Successful projects will be required to deliver economic and social benefits, and grant funding is available through two streams. The infrastructure project stream supports projects that involve construction of new infrastructure or the upgrade or extension of existing infrastructure. The community investment stream funds community development activities, including but not limited to new or expanded local events, strategic regional plans, leadership and capability-building activities.
I look forward to seeing the successful applications under round one, and I would certainly encourage any groups or organisations in my electorate to start thinking about round two. Locally we have had several successful community development grants get underway, including stage two of the multiplex in Bundaberg. The coalition government has committed $5 million to stage two, which will include a civic hall, community function rooms and a commercial kitchen and cafe. Once completed, the multiplex will be able to attract community events, business conferences and major sporting events to the region. Stage one of the multiplex was officially opened last month, April 2017, and stage two is due for completion later this year. It is being built by a local contractor, Murchie Constructions. They are doing a fantastic job.
Another great local project that is about to break ground is the expansion of the Bundaberg netball courts—again, through the community development grant. The Bundaberg Super Park will gain another four courts, shaded grandstands and shade structures around the barbecue area to provide cover in bad weather. With the additional courts, the Bundaberg Netball Association would be able to bid to host the state carnival, potentially attracting 500 teams of 10 players each, and their families and supporters. That could bring up to 10,000 people to our region, who all need somewhere to stay, somewhere to eat and, of course, somewhere to shop. This will be a great boost to our local economy.
As I have said many times in this place, small business is the lifeblood of regional economies. In my electorate, around 8½ thousand of those small businesses will benefit from recent tax cuts. We have cut the small business tax rate to 27½ per cent, the lowest level in many decades. We also redefined small business to a $10 million turnover so more small businesses will pay that lower tax rate. The budget has also been good for small business with the $20,000 instant asset write-off extended for another 12 months and $300 million to help state and territory governments complement our cuts to red tape.
I want to take this opportunity to thank some of the Bundaberg business owners who received a visit from the Minister for Business just last week. Kate Marland and her mother, Kay Warner, Scott Allison, and Tracey and Michael McPhee all had the chance to speak to the Minister for Small Business about the budget and what it would mean for their businesses directly. Kate was a great advocate for the instant asset write-off. It sounds like she has already planned what assets will be purchased in the next financial year. I have been a business owner, and I know just how important these measures are. It is great to see that they are having positive impacts for the people who are getting out there and actually having a go.
The other good news of course was for local government, in terms of Financial Assistance Grants. A measure from the budget which I know the two mayors in my electorate were extremely pleased about was the announcement that the coalition government would resume indexation on the Financial Assistance Grants Program from 1 July. Queensland is estimated to receive $465.3 million under the program, which includes the payment brought forward into 2016-17. Individual council allocations will be finalised early in 2017-18, and councils will benefit from an estimated additional $78 million, bringing the total allocation for that year to almost $2.4 billion. That is a substantial investment.
This year's budget estimates that councils will receive a total of $12.3 billion between 2016-17 and 2020-21. The government has also announced that it will bring forward two quarterly payments from the 2017-18 allocation, to be paid in 2016-17. This decision will result in councils receiving an immediate cash injection of almost $1.2 billion in the coming weeks. The reason that this program is so important to local councils, as I am sure my colleagues know, is that they can use this untied grant funding according to local priorities, including for infrastructure, health, recreation, environment, employment and roads projects.
The other thing we are doing is decentralising. The government is committed to building the capacity of our regional communities by boosting their skills base and supporting job creation. One of the ways this is happening is through the coalition government exploring opportunities to decentralise Commonwealth agencies and broaden the range of skills and job opportunities in our regions. I am a supporter of decentralisation. The 33 per cent of Australians living in regional areas should have the same opportunities as anyone who lives in the city to get the benefit of their taxpayer money. I think it is important that we diversify the locations of the departments and that people in regional areas should get the benefit of those jobs in their economies.
Regional Australia deserves well paid, skilled jobs. It deserves centres of excellence to be established to create knowledge hubs which will continue to attract and grow those jobs. Technology and modern communications give us the opportunity to reshape our vibrant regional communities. More government functions can be delivered from across Australia and no longer have to be centralised here in Canberra and other capitals. I am sure I am not the only regional MP who is eager to see the report later this year into which departments might be suitable to be moved to regional Australia.
Finally, there is the cashless debit card. Two additional communities for the cashless debit card were announced in the budget. The evaluation of the trials in Ceduna and the east Kimberley has shown a significant reduction in gambling, drug use and alcohol consumption, and an improvement in the care of children. The independent evaluation of those trials reported that across the two trial sites, on average, trial participants surveyed reported that 25 per cent of them were drinking less alcohol and 25 per cent were engaged in less binge drinking; 32 per cent said they gambled less, 24 per cent said they used illegal drugs less often, and 31 per cent said they were better able to save money and care for their children.
As the local member, I think this is an incredibly important issue. We have a community which, for some time, has certainly struggled in terms of employment and the very longstanding issues with multigenerational welfare dependence. My view on this is quite simple, and I think we have got the community behind us: if we continue to act in the same way that we have been, we will continue to get the same outcomes. Change is difficult. Change will be hard. Change will be controversial. But change is absolutely necessary. It is absolutely worth the attempt. We have an opportunity with the cashless debit card to make change for our community. It will be tough, but it will have absolutely a good outcome. As I am sure you are, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, I am tired of talking to school principals who feed over 100 children a day for breakfast because, without that, the children would not get a feed. I am tired of talking to businesses and employers who fail to get people to even apply for their positions. So I commend the bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): I call the honourable member for Kennedy and congratulate him on his birthday as well.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (17:33): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was good to listen to the previous speaker because he was a great exponent of what we call the transfer of money, as opposed to making money. Every single thing he spoke about was about taking some taxpayers' money and spending it in his electorate, and I congratulate him for securing that money for his electorate.
Probably the individual major feature of the budget was $5 billion for a tunnel in Brisbane. That will bring the tunnels in Brisbane to 30 kilometres. That is quite intriguing, actually, because Sydney, with a population five times that of Brisbane, has only 14 kilometres of tunnels. In fact, Brisbane will be, per head of population, the most tunnelled city on earth. We who are in the quarter of the population of Queensland who live in the north of Queensland get a little bit upset because, where Brisbane has 200 overpasses, we have nine. We have about the same population: we have a little bit under a million people and Brisbane has 1.2 million people. They have 200 overpasses and we have nine. They have 30 kilometres of tunnels and we have none. They have $5 billion worth of pleasure domes, starting with the magnificent football stadium and going all the way down to the function centre, which I measured at nearly a kilometre and a half long. As John Quiggin said, the wonderful thing about the politicians that represent Queensland—state and federal—is that they have tunnel vision! I have seldom heard a more appropriate comment.
There are those of us in this place who belonged to a government in Queensland that built a nation. Where does your peak load power come from? The Snowy Mountains. Where would this nation be without our ownership of our peak load power? We were building a nation. In Queensland, in the government I was part of, we built 6,000 kilometres of rail line into the mining fields of Queensland, and created it out of nothing. We were a coal-importing nation. We in the Queensland government—the much maligned Bjelke-Petersen government—created not a coal-importing nation but the greatest coal-exporting state on earth. That was Queensland. We provided 20,000 or 30,000 direct jobs and 100,000 total jobs in the state of Queensland—arguably, we created 200,000 jobs.
People asked us why we were in bed with the CFMEU. Of course, those workers were members of the CFMEU. They loved us for creating this great industry for them and for creating the most highly paid workforce on earth. Our colleagues over here on my left and on your right, Mr Deputy Speaker, say that that is a problem. High wages in Australia are the problem! Well, we said with pride that the workers of Queensland were the most highly paid workers on earth.
The budget: kicking the banks. Well, at long last, the ruling class took a really hard kick in a most painful place for the first time in my 22 years here. Remember, for half that time it was the ALP in here; they seem to be more in love with the owning class and the CEO class. I refer to the wonderful works of that Frenchman, Piketty, and his book, which is a mass best seller throughout the entire world. It is a very boring, academic treatise—very thick. He said that the new rich on earth are the CEOs—the managerial classes. They are the ruling classes. Effectively, they pay themselves what they feel like paying themselves. On average, in this country, that is about $10 million a year. Their colleagues are paid about $2 million or $3 million a year.
So, we kicked the banks. Did it hurt? Well, every newspaper in Australia was running the banking line: 'Oh, we owe a responsibility to our shareholders. We'll just have to pass it on!' Where were the free marketeers? Where were the great advocates of the free market here? Are they just going to pass it on? What they have admitted to, if not conscious parallelism, is collusion. Supply and demand is supposed to determine the price; interest rates are determined by supply and demand. Well, no they are not, because the banks just said, 'We'll pass it on.' So they have admitted that there is no free market here in the financial operations of this country. In spite of all of that, I very much appreciate that now we have found out that there is no free market in banking in Australia. We already know it does not exist in the sugar industry and we already know it does not exist in any other of a hundred industries that I could name. But now we have found out that it does not exist in banking.
But we did kick them, and I want to pay tribute to the Treasurer. Whatever his reasons for doing it, the fact is that for the first time in 23 years or whatever it is that I have been in this place, we kicked the big boys. And I can tell you that the much-maligned Bjelke-Petersen government in Queensland were on record kicking the big boys all the time. We hit them with coal freight rates, which led to an unending stream of criticism for us.
Now, to the important point about the budget. I have been asked, 'Why are you so depressed about the budget?' Well, it did not create a single job; it did not create one single job. It just transferred some money from over there—off these people, called taxation—and handed it to some people over there. That is called 'transferred money'. But there is a difference between that and 'made money'. I pay great tribute to Emma Bradbury, the local government CEO of the Murray Darling Association, who said, 'We are talking about made money.' I said, 'What does that mean?' She said, 'Well, we get some water, we spread it out and we grow potatoes or we grow grapes and we turn those grapes into wine. We make money out of it. That is made money.' All the government ever talks about is transferred money. We heard the last speaker go on for 15 minutes about how he has transferred some money from taxpayers and spent it on some self-indulgence over here.
In North Queensland, we can provide for our fellow Australians, if we can get you to build a nation. But there is nothing in this budget—not a single dollar—for nation building. If we could get a quarter of a million off you, we could build the enhanced extended waterway—IPIPI waterway, or canal. Murrandoo Yanner dreamed up that name—God bless him. If we build that waterway, we can get our fertiliser, our phosphate. We have ammonia trapped gas. So we would not caught with a lack of the government's reserve resource. We are the only country on earth not to have a reserve resource policy. We can buy our gas from the Japanese cheaper than we can buy it from the Australian suppliers through this non-existent reserve resource policy.
If you give us that quarter of a million dollars and you allow us to build that canal, which is under the federal government, not the state government, then we can provide for you a billion dollars a year in fertiliser production. That is not a figure plucked out of the air. I had the very great honour and privilege of presiding over the Incitec Pivot plant in Mt Isa which produces two thousand million dollars a year from just one mine—the Duchess Mine. We are talking here about six mines going into a central plant and having no costs for transportation. The canal is $7 a tonne whereas, with the Port of Townsville—we are transhipping at sea—and the railway line, we are talking about $70 or $80 a tonne. Here, we are talking about $7 a tonne. That is the difference between getting this project going and not getting this project going.
Hell's Gates, which is a giant dam scheme at the back of Townsville, will supply Townsville with a much-needed water supply. In fact, the dam, the last time I looked, was $260 million. The cost of the pipeline to Townsville is a pretty negligible item. You could build that tomorrow and Townsville would have its water supply tomorrow. But Hell's Gate produces for our country $3 billion a year forever and 30,000 permanent jobs.
There is not a single nation-building project in this budget. There is no canal waterway to get our fertiliser out. There is no dam so that we can hold back a little tiny bit of the massive floodwaters in North Queensland and spread it out onto land which is now called the Desert Uplands. We can turn the desert into a golden bowl of food production, ethanol production and timber production. And the wonderful thing about Hell's Gate is it will produce almost all of North Queensland's power needs—one per cent of Australia's entire power needs—and it would be totally renewable because of the great technological breakthroughs with algae that won the United Nations prize for the environment. We found out that, if we bubble the CO2 from burning sugarcane fibre into ponds, it produces magical cattle feed or biodiesel. You can use a different sort of algae and produce biodiesel. The STADS project, which is on the upper Herbert at the back Cairns—not the back of Townsville in this case—is $2.5 billion a year.
Our first Australians are dying from diabetes—malnutrition—in proportions that are a disgrace to this nation. We give them $5 billion a year for the silicon from Cape York, and hundreds and hundreds of jobs. We are going to give a foreign corporation a gift of $1,000 million to build a railway line into the Galilee! If I were a betting man, I would bet that the greenies are going to win the battle—so we will burn up the $1,000 million and still have no railway line! If the government builds the railway line, then it will be built. The government environmental departments cannot stop the government; a government cannot stop itself from building a railway line. Every single kilometre of 6,090 kilometres of railway line in Queensland was built by the government—and not a single cent from private enterprise. And, speaking as probably the third- or second-ranking minister in that government, we made an awful lot of money out of those railway lines. With the rail profits that we made and the payroll tax and the mineral royalties, we ran Queensland on a tiny little budget of $8 billion—because we were smart and we got the money from building a nation. That is where the money came from—building a nation.
The Fitzgerald inquiry told us all how corrupt we were. I thought we were a bit brutal at times, but it is rather intriguing that we are supposed to be 'a police state'. Hold on a minute! We only had 2,000 people in jail. The socialists who have ruled for most of the 29 years since, the great freedom-loving socialists, have 8,000 people in jail. We had 2,000 people in jail; they have 8,000 people in jail. If you ever forget to send in your money to renew your gun licence, as one of my constituents did last week, you are put in jail. If you have a few beers at the wrong time and drive your car, you go to jail. Little kids go to jail for being stupid and driving around in someone else's car that their brother has stolen or something. This is good fun, except that putting those kids in jail is costing us $570 million a year. Is it any wonder the state is going broke? But you count on the old socialists to be self-righteous and oppress everybody. They do not just oppress the rich; they oppress everybody. They have a very good egalitarian spirit when it comes to oppression and restriction and a freedomless state.
Finally, it will not cost the government anything much at all—maybe a couple of hundred million dollars—for micro-irrigation in small towns like Hughenden, on-farm irrigation for our cattlemen and title deeds for our first Australians. Give us that and we will give you $7 billion a year in cattle income. And I would at some future date like to talk about young families and retirees and how they can be looked after. (Time expired)
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (17:48): I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018. It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Kennedy. I want to report that this government's budget has been quite well received around Brisbane. I held mobile offices around my electorate over the past week and spoke to a great variety of local people about different measures in the budget. Whether it was the small business measures to help small businesses grow and make that prosperity that the member for Kennedy was talking about, the infrastructure investment, the schools funding or the certainty being provided to the NDIS, the feedback has been almost universally positive. One constituent I met yesterday on racecourse Road in Hamilton was Cathy. Cathy told me how she liked the fact that this budget was trying to move Australia past some of the divisive and partisan arguments that have bogged down and distracted this parliament for too many years. She wanted me to congratulate the Prime Minister on this government's announcements on schools funding, on guaranteeing Medicare and on fully funding the NDIS. Well, Cathy, consider it done. I also met a lady named Sue on Kedron Brook Road in Wilston, who is the carer for her disabled child and who told me that she was relieved that the government was trying to bypass the politics that threaten the bipartisan support for the NDIS. She told me how the budget would provide the NDIS and many families like hers with the stability and security they would need to move confidently forwards into the future.
Three days ago I was very pleased to have the Commonwealth Treasurer visit Brisbane. We attended a pretty big gathering of local businessmen and businesswomen, as well as many from other Brisbane community and non-government organisations. The Treasurer was able to talk through many aspects of the budget and many of the budget measures, and answer questions along the way. I say a very big thank you to the Valley Chamber of Commerce, its members and its partners, as well as to the Property Council, for helping to bring together such a great event and so many people from right across Brisbane. The small-business measures are very, very close to my heart. I have been very pleased to observe, over the last three or four years, how it is becoming a hallmark of budgets these days to place a special focus and a special emphasis on small business. And so we should, when we consider how small business continues to drive the creation of jobs, entrepreneurship, innovation and risk-taking in Australia. Focusing on small business in a budget is not an automatic outcome; it is a record of achievement of this Liberal-National government. Talking with Brisbane business people the other day, the Treasurer noted in passing the incredibly popular instant asset write-off being extended for small businesses in the budget. There are about 30,000 small businesses in Brisbane that can, hopefully, take advantage of this measure and more easily invest in and grow their businesses.
The centrepiece for small business is that the budget enshrines the Turnbull government's delivery of small and medium business tax cuts—immediate tax cuts for small businesses—and then further tax cuts over the course of the Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan. This will be one of the hallmark achievements of the parliament this year, and it is something I have already spoken about a number of times in this chamber. Everyone who works in small business or helps run or manage a small business needs to know that the Labor Party is proposing to reverse those tax cuts if they ever win government.
The Treasurer also spoke in Brisbane about the infrastructure being delivered for Queensland and for Australia in this budget. It is a $75 billion infrastructure budget. It commits to a long-term vision, and it is a game changing infrastructure set of projects across the nation. The major funding announcements for Queensland to help ease congestion on both the Bruce Highway north of the city and the M1 south of the city are good news for almost everyone who goes anywhere around South-East Queensland. The $8.4 billion equity injection that the Turnbull government will make into the Australian Rail Track Corporation for inland rail between Melbourne and Brisbane is good news not just for those of us at the end of the line in Brisbane but for every region and every centre along the route all the way to Melbourne. The Treasurer also specifically named the Brisbane Metro and Cross River Rail in the budget as projects that should, in the future, be able to access the new $10 billion National Rail Program, once their business cases are completed and assessed. There has been a little bit of argy-bargy about the Cross River Rail project in the news over the past week in Queensland. I will be generous and limit my comments now, in passing, to saying that maybe some of the silly arguments that were progressed are down to the fact that pre-election nerves are driving state politics at the moment in Queensland, and move on.
The topic of school funding has been receiving a lot of support as well in Brisbane, I can report. The Minister for Education and Training, Simon Birmingham, was in Brisbane one week ago, and we met with the principals of about 40 local schools as well as representatives from many of the P&C and P&F associations right across Brisbane. Our needs based funding model for schools, endorsed by Gonski, is about fairness, but, just as importantly, it is about transparency. I have 46 schools in my electorate of Brisbane. Under the school funding announcements made by this government and funded in this budget, over 40 of those schools will be getting significant funding increases. I do have a handful of local schools that will receive approximately the same funding levels going forwards, and I have one school that looks like it will receive cuts going forwards. Based on those facts, I encourage all parents in Brisbane to check out the online estimator to see for themselves how much extra funding the federal government will be providing for their school and to look at how the funding of so many of our local schools will change. I encourage all parents to do this—to look at the details—because I am confident that, once you get into those details, the school funding announcements made by this government and funded in this budget are eminently fair. They are creating a system that is equitable and needs based, as Gonski originally intended.
By way of example, for the Kelvin Grove State College, which is the biggest school in my electorate in inner-north Brisbane, this government will provide Education Queensland with funding that starts at about $2,300 per student on average in 2017 and that rises to $3,682 per student in 2027. Even assuming no further growth in student numbers, that will add up to over $18 million of additional funding for Kelvin Grove State College over the next 10 years. For Windsor State School, a much smaller school, right near my house, the government will provide Education Queensland with an extra $4.3 million over the next 10 years, assuming no growth in student numbers. It is a similar story for almost every other school in the government, Catholic, Anglican and independent school systems. For St Columba's, for instance, in Wilston, funding from the Commonwealth to the Queensland Catholic education body will increase from $3,500 per student on average to $4,950 per student in 2027. Similarly, for St Agatha's in Clayfield, funding from the Commonwealth to the Queensland Catholic education body will increase from $4,092 per student on average to $5,781 per student in 2027. So schools across Brisbane in every sector will be receiving significant increases in funding under this government's needs based funding model. The total increase in federal government funding for schools in the electorate of Brisbane over the next 10 years is $211 million, spread across those 46 schools and currently across the enrolled 26,000 school students.
The transparency of school funding we are providing is the key here. It demonstrates the fairness for everyone to see. To the extent that that transparency then raises subsequent questions about how individual systems such as Education Queensland or the Catholic education body distribute the funding we provide from the Commonwealth, then I believe that is a healthy consequence, because I trust in parents and principals and school systems to have a logical, grown-up and constructive conversation about that based on the facts. It stands in stark contrast to the alternative approach that we inherited when it comes to school funding, Labor's 27 different deals for different states and different sectors, with no transparency and no ability for parents, school communities and principals to understand what is really going on.
On another topic, health care, contrary to some of the silly scare campaigns that have been run by the Labor Party in recent times, Medicare funding will continue to increase by $2.4 billion over the next four years. To the extent that the Commonwealth helps the states to run the state hospital systems, that will also increase by $2.8 billion over the four years. While Labor froze the GP rebate when they broke the national budget all those years ago, it is the Liberal-National government that is now unfreezing it. While Labor stopped listing new medicines when they broke the national budget, it is the Liberal-National government that is listing new medicines, such as for Australians at risk of chronic heart failure.
The government is also working closely with doctors on the introduction of the Health Care Homes model of care to improve services for people with complex and chronic conditions. Specifically for Brisbane, I was very pleased to see in the budget that the Turnbull government's Health Care Homes program will include a trial site at the Spring Hill Medical Centre right in the heart of Brisbane, and I look forward to seeing the trial up and running as quickly as possible.
I was also pleased to see in the budget that Brisbane is receiving another road blackspot funding project, following on from the four intersection upgrades that I have already been proud to deliver, working closely in partnership with the Brisbane City Council. This funding will continue to deliver safety improvements, such as safety barriers and street lighting to sections of dangerous road that have a crash history. After the successful completion of works near the Waterloo in the Valley, the works on Wickham Street and Gotha Street in the Valley, the Kelvin Grove Road intersection near the Normanby and the intersection of Lamont and Newmarket roads in Wilston, we will now be turning our focus to the next most dangerous intersection according to the statistics, which is the intersection of Wickham Street and Brookes Street in the Valley. So there will be approximately $350,000 going towards safety improvements on that intersection. They are most welcome, and I want to thank the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Darren Chester, for that announcement.
On the topic of housing, I was very pleased to see in the budget quite a number of measures that will work in a number of different ways to improve housing affordability, particularly but not just for young people and prospective first home buyers. In Brisbane, of course, the market is not exactly the same as in Melbourne and Sydney. In Brisbane we are currently experiencing a surplus of new apartments, and it is driving down rents in some areas, like Newstead, and prices for some types of housing. Prices for apartments in some areas are reportedly 10 to 20 per cent lower than they were just this time last year. I want more people to buy their first home in Brisbane. I want it broadcast across the country how you can find dozens and dozens of properties in inner Brisbane for less than $200,000 right now, today, if you search online. I want prospective first home buyers to know about the different measures being implemented by this government that are aimed specifically at people like them and the types of properties they are most likely to buy the first time around in places like Brisbane.
I also want to acknowledge in passing the extra funding in this budget for homelessness and social housing, especially for domestic violence victims and youth. The housing debate is not just about people wanting to buy their first home; it is about people who struggle to pay the rent and therefore could never save a deposit and it is also about all those people who will not even have a roof over their heads at some point in their lives. The inner city is naturally where a lot of vulnerable and homeless people go to access the help, services and safety that is more readily available there.
In closing, I want to reinforce that the people of Brisbane have generally received this budget quite well. They approve of the measures that are in front of them. As they become more aware of them, I think their support is only going to grow. I want to note that much is being said by the opposition about some of the budget measures, and I suppose we will wait and see what happens in the Senate over coming weeks and months. It is disappointing to me in this debate on the appropriation bills that the opposition would be seeking to misappropriate the word 'fairness', which applies, sadly, less and less to the policies being pursued by the modern Labor Party and the current Leader of the Opposition. It is all politics and hypocrisy with the current Leader of the Opposition. Labor froze the GP rebate. This Liberal-National government is unfreezing it. Labor made big spending commitments for the NDIS outside the forward estimates. This Liberal-National government is securing the funding and the certainty that disabled people, their carers and their families deserve. Labor bastardised the Gonski recommendations and delivered 27 different funding models that treat every state and every system differently, which no parent can see, let alone understand. This Liberal-National government is delivering the needs based funding that treats all students equally and that Gonski originally intended.
Labor has committed itself to increasing the taxes on all small- and medium-sized businesses if it ever wins power, whereas this Liberal-National government has just decreased the tax burden on our hardworking small businesses, who are, as I said, the most likely to generate the new jobs, the opportunities and the prosperity that our country so desperately needs. Labor wants to pretend that it has a silver bullet for housing, whereas it is actually pursuing policies that will probably seek to indiscriminately or bluntly smash the values of all homes of all kinds, such is the bluntness of their policy prescriptions, whereas this Liberal-National government has targeted its range of measures at prospective first home buyers and at the classes of housing most likely to be bought by new home owners in places like Brisbane. Just thinking about the budget in broad terms, Labor wants to massively ramp up spending, whereas this government is keeping a lid on spending growth, which, with the hopefully constructive collaboration of the Senate in the weeks and months following, should see Australia return to a balanced budget position in 2020-21. Labor wants to massively increase the intergenerational debt burden we place on the next generation, and it has the audacity to talk about fairness. It is time the Labor Party stopped misappropriating the word 'fairness' and made some sort of constructive contribution to Australia's future based on the very sensible measures outlined in this budget. I commend this budget to the House. I commend this appropriation bill to the House.
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (18:03): I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-18 and related bills. Tasmanians will grin and bear the tired jokes about two heads, up to a point, but if there is one thing that really annoys us it is when Tasmania is left off the map of Australia. In 1956, we were left out of the Olympics signage. In 1982 and 2014, we were left off the map design on uniforms for the Commonwealth Games. In 2012, Arnott's left us out of the artwork for their Australia-shaped biscuits. Even South Australia left us off their logo. Woolworths had to withdraw caps from the market because the great state of Tasmania had been left off the map of Australia. We can live with the two heads, but we will not live with being left off the map. So you can imagine how we feel when it is not a Sydney graphic designer drunk on his chai latte leaving us off the map but the Treasurer and the Prime Minister of the nation who leave Tasmania off the map. That is what they did two weeks ago in the budget.
The Prime Minister and the Treasurer of Australia left Tasmania off the national map. They left Tasmania off the map in every way—in infrastructure investment, health and education funding, and support for tourism. They ignored Tasmania at every turn.
There was $75 billion in infrastructure investment for the rest of the country but nothing for Tasmania. There was $5.3 billion for a new airport in New South Wales, $1 billion for rail in Victoria, $1.6 billion for road and rail in WA and $844 million for roads in Queensland. You know what, Treasurer? Tasmanian roads need investment too, well beyond what is already in the pipeline—a pipeline started by Labor. We could certainly do with a new Bridgewater Bridge to provide certainty to north-south traffic flows and to ensure that the billions that have been invested to date in the Midland Highway—investment that has occurred mostly under Labor—is put to best use. It is not like these are pie in the sky projects; they are on the Infrastructure Australia short list for priority funding but ignored by this Treasurer and by this Prime Minister. There was also nothing for much-needed sewerage in Launceston in the seat of my good friend the member for Bass or for the University of Tasmania's STEM relocation project.
It is little wonder then that in the two weeks since the budget not one minister from this government has set foot in Tasmania—not even the most junior assistant. The Liberals have been too embarrassed to show their faces in a state they have abandoned. This budget is a betrayal of Tasmania and particularly of the 119,000 Tasmanians who put their faith in those opposite and voted Liberal last July. This Prime Minister and this Treasurer have told all Tasmanians in no uncertain terms that they do not matter to them. Where are Tasmania's federal Liberal representatives, the four Tasmanian Liberal senators, the four horsemen of the apocalypse as it were? Missing in action—perhaps sharing a bush with Sean Spicer, hiding from Tasmanian journalists and inconvenient questions, notable only for their silence and their abject failure to stand up for the people of their state.
Compare the government's risible performance with that of Labor. In the two weeks since the budget, Tasmania has played host to the opposition leader, to the deputy opposition leader, to the shadow Treasurer, to the shadow infrastructure and transport minister, to the shadow communications minister and to the shadow minister for veterans' affairs and defence personnel. Labor has also held community meetings on the NBN, on jobs, on education and on veterans. Labor is talking to Tasmanians and Labor is listening to Tasmanians. So if there is one document that sums up this government's complete contempt for the people of Tasmania, it is this budget.
It is not just the big-ticket items like infrastructure. The government's contempt reaches right down to community level. A year ago sports and community groups in my electorate received letters from the former Liberal member that they had secured $10,000 grants for solar panels. Since his defeat, the former member has been appointed by the government to administer Norfolk Island, but surely the promises he made on behalf of the government should stand? Tasmanians have certainly been assured repeatedly that all commitments would be honoured, despite the defeat of the three Liberal MPs across Tasmania, but in the 10 months since the election we have heard nothing.
I wrote to Minister Frydenberg last October to seek some answers and, some weeks later, Minister Nash replied, essentially saying, in terms admittedly more polite than this: 'Butt out. We will deal with the groups directly and we are not telling you anything.' But seven months later the groups are getting nervous. They tell me they are still waiting for their solar panels, and I do not see any sign of their funding in this budget. I have learnt that groups like the Perth Football Club have been directed to resubmit their paperwork to apply for funds that they have already been promised. So not only was there little mention of Tasmania in the budget, but it also seems that members of my community now have to scrounge and beg simply to receive what they have already been promised.
If there are two areas of the budget where this government really fails Tasmanians, they are health and education. The Liberals continue to put vulnerable Tasmanians' health at risk with their three-year delay to reversing the Medicare rebate freeze. Those opposite will cackle like galahs every time we mention the freeze, pointing out that it was introduced by Labor. That is very helpful of them. We have never denied it. But what those opposite fail to point out is that the freeze was designed to last less than a year. It was the Liberals, elected in 2013 and re-elected in 2016, who decided, over our objections, to keep it in place. It is only because of Labor's ongoing pressure that they have now agreed, reluctantly and far too slowly, to remove it in 2020.
Every day the freeze remains is a day that the cost of a visit to the GP increases. Tasmanians already suffer from below-average bulk-billing rates. Across Tasmania, just 74 per cent of GPs bulk-bill, compared to the national average of 84.1 per cent. Between July 2016 and March 2017 Tasmania's bulk-billing fell by 2.2 per cent, more than three times the national average, taking Tasmania to being the second lowest bulk-billing state in the country. Out-of-pocket costs to visit a GP have risen by $5.90 per appointment since December 2014, from $30.79 out of pocket to $36.74 out of pocket. Each day the freeze stays in place is another day when a mum on a low income has to choose between paying the rent and getting that lump checked out; when a man has to decide between a birthday present for his grandchild and asking his doctor why it hurts to urinate. Worse, most people in my electorate earn below the national average income. More people than average are in receipt of Centrelink payments. More people than average suffer from intergenerational welfare dependency, and more people than average suffer medical conditions. People in my electorate and my state cannot absorb these further cuts to health, and there is little doubt that these outcomes are linked to the historically poor outcomes in education.
Labor would have invested more in schools and TAFE across Australia and Tasmania; but the Liberals are slashing funding. $85 million is to be cut from schools in Tasmania, and $65 million of that is from public schools, where the investment need is historically greatest. On average, it is a $2.4 million hit to every school in Tasmania. That is a hit that my communities cannot absorb. Schools in my electorate have already lost pathway planners and other essential resources due to decisions by the state Liberal government. We are not cutting fat anymore: the Liberals are into flesh and bone. It makes no sense, because at the same time that this government is cutting $22 billion from schools it is handing $25 billion to corporations and banks, and it wants to hand over another $25 billion if it can get the rest of its corporate tax giveaway through the Senate. Economists, the Australia Institute and the OECD all agree that investing in education provides a much bigger bang for our buck than a handout that will at best deliver 0.1 per cent economic growth in 10 years time. That is not growth—that is a rounding error. So if you are not convinced by the touchy, feely, left-wing idealism of providing young people with better opportunities just because it will make them happier, healthier and wealthier, be convinced by the fact that it is better for business.
When we talk about big numbers we can sometimes get in a bit of daze. One of the aspects of this budget that really upsets me is the $11 million being ripped out of Tasmania's TAFE and training sector. I am a big believer in tertiary education. I know that I personally have benefited greatly from it. As a boy from the suburbs—from Maddington in Western Australia—tertiary education opened my eyes, I think, as no other education could have.
I do acknowledge that tertiary education is not necessarily for everyone and that TAFE and apprenticeships provide a fantastic vocational pathway to work for many people. But we need to resource them properly, not cut them to shreds. I still recall that the first act of this government in 2013 was to axe the trade training centres program when the next trade training centre on the books was to be in Campbell Town in my electorate—a town that would have benefited greatly from a trade training centre and the opportunities it would have provided to young people in the northern Midlands.
Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, explain to me, please, the logic of increasing the cost of university while also lowering the threshold at which fee repayments have to start. It is a double whammy for young people, and it is getting to the stage already where too many young people in regions and outer suburbs are not even thinking of university as an option—especially when they are anxious about the rising cost of housing and power. It is not even entering their consciousness that it could be a possibility for them. We are restricting social mobility when we should be advancing it.
At its heart, this is a budget of unfairness because on 1 July every member of this chamber and the other place will get a big tax cut, while the people who clean our offices, and the men and women who guard our galleries, serve us our meals and drive us around in the big fancy cars will all get a tax rise. And that unfairness sticks in my throat. On 1 July someone earning $1 million will pay $16,400 less tax, while someone earning a relatively modest, these days, $65,000 will pay $325 more tax in two years time. How on earth is that fair? In a country where there is a widening income gap, where unfairness is getting worse not better, how is that fair? This budget makes it worse, not better.
This budget fails the jobs test. Unemployment is going up. We do not hear 'jobs and growth' anymore. It has been clear, though, since that little slogan bit the dust that it just has not happened. This budget fails the Medicare test. And this budget fails the fairness test.
Australians cannot trust this Prime Minister nor this Treasurer to deliver a fair budget. They do not believe it. Their party does not believe it. And Tasmanians—well, we certainly do not believe it.
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (18:17): It is a great pleasure to rise to speak. This is one of the best topics to speak on during the course of the year—the 'approps' bill. It is budget time. Some look at it and think: 'What are appropriations?' For those who are listening out there, Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018 is an opportunity for members to come into the chamber and have a free kick. You can go hard. And I am going to go hard because—
Mr Brian Mitchell: You are a Queenslander!
Mr BUCHHOLZ: Absolutely. And I want to acknowledge the honourable member from Tasmania—
Mr Brian Mitchell: Lyons.
Mr BUCHHOLZ: from the seat of Lyons, for his heartfelt contribution. And, in the robust spirit of the debate on appropriations, we will hear opposition for the sake of opposition. But, in saying that, you made some points, and the idea of having a robust debate is to be able to freely put your case forward in the nation's parliament and then have it rebutted aggressively by those on the other side. But I always welcome the debate and your contribution to this place; you are nothing other than entertaining in this joint. So I appreciate your contribution.
I am going to start by just picking up on the honourable member's contribution around education. A key word was 'fairness'. He said that we were cutting funding to education. I am going to start there—in the education space.
My electorate of Wright is beautiful. It is an absolutely beautiful electorate. It is on the Gold Coast hinterland, and goes up to Toowoomba and down to the New South Wales border. It is very picturesque. I have 71 schools—primary and secondary, Catholic, independent and state—with 23,220 students. I can stand here in this parliament, put my hand on my heart and dispute the comments made before that there were cuts to education and say that every single one of the schools in my electorate—71 in total, with 23,220 students—will be the beneficiary of extra funding as a result of Gonski 2.0.
I have not looked at the Tasmanian numbers, but I am aware that if there are 90,000 schools 42 schools will be worse off—their funding will go backwards. The member for Lyons must have the unluckiest seat in the country if 42 of the schools in his electorate are going to go backwards. I will go back up to my office, I will go to the online calculator and I will check his schools and bring to the attention of the House whether his schools will be worse off. A question was asked of the Prime Minister in question time today about a school that was going backwards, but when we looked at the online calculator, surprise, surprise, the school mentioned in the question was going to be many hundreds of thousands of dollars better off. I will do that for the member for Lyons to assist him—it might change the flavour of his media releases; his principals, who have been hearing him saying they would be worse off, might be surprised to see that they might be better off under Gonski 2.0 than they were last year.
The member for Lyons was talking about 'if Gonski was instigated', but we now have Gonski 2.0, which is not as aggressive. He is playing on words when he says that is where the cuts were. We make the point, in open debate, that those investments were never going to materialise because Gonski was not fully funded. Our education process is fully funded; nevertheless, I will help the honourable member for Lyons by pointing out that most of his schools will be better off, and I look forward to taking the opportunity to school him.
There is a total increase in federal government funding for schools in Wright over the next 10 years. I am not a fan of forecasting over 10 years. I love my economics. Our budget papers run for a period of four years—they are the forward estimates. Anything outside the estimates are outlook years, and I do not normally like those forecasts. But we have included, this year, 10-year forecasts because schools, rightfully—the member for Lyons will agree with me—are looking for financial security for their planning and they are looking for an indicative idea of what government's intention is into the future, so in this case we are using 10-year forecasts and I am very proud to say that in my electorate alone over the next 10 years we will be the beneficiaries of no less than $275 million extra, all things being equal from today. Importantly, our increased funding will be tied to reforms, and evidence shows that that makes a real difference in supporting our teachers and schools to improve student outcomes.
Over the weekend I had the privilege of having dinner with a group of high school principals who are motivated to change the trajectory of our English and literature outcomes for students in the state of Queensland. We were joined by a gentleman by the name of John Collins. John is the author of the Collins reading and writing program out of Harvard—an incredibly talented man, 75 years of age. His wife, Becky, was unable to travel with him this year—on behalf of the parliament we hope that her surgery went well and we look forward to seeing her on their next trip. I am pretty sure, after speaking to John Collins, that he is not of the government's political persuasion, but, as someone from Harvard University, he was excited about the extra money and the reforms being spent in the education system. He did make the point that extra money does not normally mean better outcomes for students—it does go to better quality teachers and it does go to a number of other factors relating to socioeconomics and demographics. Another issue around education is that maybe we should not get too hung-up on our PISA standings—that is a conversation for another bill on another day. This is a fair system. It is good for students, it is good for parents and it is good for teachers.
Just before I leave education, I want to quickly mention an opportunity I had last week to visit a school whilst I was in the Lockyer Valley. Not only are we making a commitment to all my 71 schools that they are going to be better off financially next year and over the next 10 years but, on top of that, we are going to partner with our schools, either in the Catholic system or in the state system or others, in our Capital Grants Program. I was very proud the other day that we are partnering, to the tune of around $2.3 million, with our Catholic school over in Gatton, Our Lady of Good Counsel. The principal over there is Nathan Haley, and his deputy is James Bradley. They are doing an amazing job with that school. The first compliment I offered them—the Capital Works Program was around $2½ million—was the value for money that you see when you walk into the place. I remember back when we were doing comparative analyses of value for money I saw similar types of capital expenditure in the education revolution world under a former government, where $2.5 million would basically get you a lean-to and a tuckshop.
Mr Hammond interjecting—
Mr BUCHHOLZ: The interjection from the honourable member for Perth alluded to the stimulatory effect of the Building the Education Revolution, and it did have some stimulatory effects. Could it have been better? Again, that is a debate for another day. So, I acknowledge the member's interjection.
I am going to leave education now and roll into something else the member for Lyons spoke about—the Medicare situation. I said to you wholeheartedly that I do enjoy your contributions in this place, and I was interested when you mentioned that you have a 74 per cent Medicare bulk-billing take-up. We are far more fortunate in my electorate of Wright. We have already seen a record number of Australians in Wright accessing vital Medicare services. Last financial year there were just under a million—923,298 GP services bulk-billed in the electorate. I am up at around 90.9—financial year statistics. So, I would not suggest that the system is broken, because it works for me. I am quite happy to have a chat with you. They are perplexing figures that you have—whether or not it is an ageing demographic, or something else.
This budget provides $1.2 billion to provide cheaper access to vital medicines. We are seeing extra drugs being put on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that go to helping some of the people in my electorate who suffer from heart disease, pulmonary fibrosis, schizophrenia and severe asthma. In this budget we see further strengthening of our support for mental health and suicide prevention packages of around $170,000—probably not a significant number in the overall budget. For me, I am always going to reach out and help organisations in that suicide space, particularly if it is saving the lives of some of our younger people. Australians living in regional and rural areas will now have significantly improved access to psychologists under our new $9.1 million telehealth incentives to roll out this year.
Dotted through some of the speakers on the other side of the House were those saying that this budget is unfair. For those who are listening tonight through our broadcasting capabilities, if you think spending more money on schools, putting more money into vital medicines, spending more money on prevention on suicides, spending more money on telehealth facilities and spending more money looking after veterans—in my electorate, 1,569—is unfair, well, I will then have the debate with you on what you perceive fairness to be, because I am telling you that this is fair and it goes to the people who need it. You will have the opportunity, as those who sit on the other side of the House, to come in and vote against all these measures if you wish. Vote against them, because as you come in here—rightfully so—lying, saying it is unfair, I will come in and defend the government's position that it is fair. It is right, because it goes to the heart of addressing the poor and vulnerable in my electorate who need the representation. I was elected by my people to come to this place and defend their rights. In my maiden speech I spoke of representing the voice of the silent majority. We hear the minority groups. I will come and defend this through the Appropriation Bill because I believe it is a fair budget.
We are creating a fund to help train Australian apprentices in key trades and skills to get more young Australians to work and to help them in business. This extra investment will help approximately 1,700 local young Australians aged between 15 and 24 for jobs, looking for work in Wright. Some of those on the other side are saying that helping people get an apprenticeship is unfair. That is their prerogative.
Agriculture is a key local industry in my electorate. It is the single biggest contributor to GDP in the electorate. This budget goes to helping it. The government is committed to establishing a regional investment corporation to stream the delivery of up to $4 billion in concessional loans which will benefit our local producers. Our local producers were on show more recently in Adelaide. I went down to the AUSVEG gala dinner on the weekend, where we saw some of my local growers. I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge Queensland's and Lockyer Valley's Anthony Staatz from Gatton, who was named the vegetable industry's grower of the year. He is a great Queenslander and a constituent of mine in Wright. He was flanked by a number of other finalists from all over the country, including Rob Hinrichsen, who was last year's grower of the year and is from Kalfresh in my electorate. Finalists from this year were Matt Hood from Rugby Farm and of course Sharon Windoff, making some incredible inroads for the sector in and around the work we do in making sure that we can put food on the table for Australians. Local dairy farmers will benefit from a $2 million investment in creating a commodity price index to help with planning and decision making, and $8.3 million will be invested in the livestock export industry to develop more efficient and effective insurance systems for local exporters.
We are going to spend some money in child care to help those mums and dads who are out working, trying to make ends meet. When they put their children into child care there used to be a $7½ thousand cap and government would maximise 50 per cent rebate. If you have a household under $185,000 annual income, which is the vast majority of my electorate, we are going to take that cap away again.
To those on the other side, if you think this is an unfair budget, come into this House and vote against it, but I will debate the merits of this budget. It is a budget that is designed to help those that are vulnerable. It is a budget that is designed for jobs and growth. It is a budget that is designed to help those in my electorate. Pull out the measures you think are unfair, absolutely—that is the hustle and bustle of this place. I know the organisations that are going to benefit from this budget.
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (18:33): Thank you, Deputy Speaker Kelly, for your company last week. I want to commence my contribution to the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018 not by talking about the budget but by talking about something which is probably far more important in many respects—that is, to express my condolences to Ray Riley and his family for the passing of his wife, Sue, who died very recently from mesothelioma.
She died from mesothelioma as a result of acquiring the disease through washing her husband's clothes. She lived down on Mosquito Bay on the south coast and was someone who I came to know well over the last decade or so. She was a fine person and an extremely wonderful woman. She was a nurse and a champion for her community. Her family was the centre of her life—her husband, Ray, her children and her grandchildren. I can only imagine the pain they are feeling as the result of her loss.
I just wanted to say how sad I am at her passing. My partner, Elizabeth, would want me to express our condolences forthrightly and appropriately in this place. I have said elsewhere and at other times that often we do not spend enough time contemplating the good deeds of so many Australians. Sue was a wonderful woman and a great Australian who gave her life to her family. She was also a highly qualified nurse who worked up until very recently. To Ray and the family, please accept our condolences on the sad passing of Sue.
I also feel sadness when I look at this budget. We have opportunities here to do things which are fair and reasonable for all Australians, but this budget fails dismally. It fails, as others have said, the economic credibility test. It fails the fairness test. It clearly sees it as important to allow someone earning $1 million to have a tax break while someone on $65,000 pays more tax. That is not fair and it is not reasonable. It is not fair to attack young Australians or low- and middle-income earners as this budget does. When I go around my electorate—and there are not too many millionaires, I can tell you—there are many who say they want something that is fair, that addresses their needs and that addresses the aspirations they might have for themselves and their families.
It is in that context that I want to talk about the education cuts in this bill. The Northern Territory, almost perversely, will be $254 million worse off over the next decade than it would otherwise have been if the full Gonski 1.0 had been put in place. The schools of the Northern Territory serve 19,000 Northern Territory families and 34,500 kids at 153 public schools. The majority of those schools are in my electorate of Lingiari. The majority of those are in remote Aboriginal communities looking after the educational interests of the most disadvantaged Australians in the country. As a result of this budget the students, the families and the schools will be worse off. Average per-student funding for government school students across Australia will grow by five per cent per year for the next decade. In the case of the Northern Territory, funding currently receives 23 per cent of the school resourcing standard. Under the proposals in this budget, schools in the Northern Territory will be expected to transition to 20 percent of the SRS by 2027. So there will be an effective three per cent cut in terms of that standard in the Northern Territory applied to the most disadvantaged students and the most disadvantaged schools in the country.
One wonders how the Commonwealth and the government—in particular, the Minister for Education, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer—can stand up and say that students in the Northern Territory will somehow be better off. They are clearly going to be worse off, and this is the direct responsibility of the government. I am sure they will come up with some proposal for transitional arrangements—offer them a little bit of money—but it will not address the disadvantage and inequality that will come out of the Northern Territory as a direct result of this budget. In 2017 the Commonwealth funding per student in an NT government school is $6,445. In 2027 it will be $7,369. That is a difference of $924 over the 10 years. It is hardly a remarkable amount of money. In effect, these students will clearly be worse off in real terms as a result of that funding arrangement.
It is up to the Commonwealth to address this issue and support Labor's view on the education cuts. It is not reasonable to take $22 billion out of the education funding across the country, which is what is happening. As I said, $240 million of that will come out of the Northern Territory. Why should Northern Territory kids and their families be persecuted in this way by this government?
I sit here very close to the front of the chamber, and I see a rancorous Prime Minister at every question time trying to demonise people who object to or criticise the government's position. All I can say is that clearly he has not walked in the shoes of the people I am referring to, nor does he understand what it would be like to walk in them. If he did, he would change his view.
I also want to refer briefly to health expenditure, particularly in the area of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health. Clearly in this budget there is very little new funding for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health. There are a small handful of announcements, which we welcome. The National Partnership Agreement on Rheumatic Fever Strategy continuation and expansion measure allocates an additional $7.6 million to continue and expand the agreement. The Project Agreement on Improving Trachoma Control Services for Indigenous Australians is due to receive an additional $20.7 million over the forward estimates to continue trachoma control up to 2021, by which time that dreadful Third World disease should be eliminated from this country forever.
What is not in this budget, though, is any funding for the implementation strategy for the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan, which is a bipartisan plan supported by the government and the opposition. We were hoping we would see something concrete around how the government sees this plan progressing over the period, because it goes from 2013 to 2023, the government has been in office now for four years, and we have not seen an implementation strategy. It is hard to see how the plan can be properly implemented until we see resources allocated to this implementation strategy.
I note also that we are getting back a bit of the money cut out of the 2014 budget. A hundred and thirty million dollars was cut out in the 2014 budget, principally from Indigenous antismoking campaigns, and still that money has not been fully restored. Some of it has been put back, but we still wait to see the full restoration.
The other area where we have seen not new funding but an announcement in this budget is the expansion of the Australian Nurse-Family Partnership Program to four new sites to increase the number of sites by the end of June 2018. It might be worth pointing out, just so that people do not have any illusions about this, that this is not new money either. This money was first announced in the 2014 budget, and it is being reannounced in this budget. The 2014 budget made the appropriation. Minister Nash was the minister at the time, and her press release of 19 June 2014 said:
As Minister Nash outlined in Senate question time today, the 'Better Start to Life' investment in the 2014-15 budget will commence from July 2015. It will include:
… … …
$40 million to expand the evidence-based Australian Nurse Family partnership (ANFP) approach to increase support for high needs families.
In this year's budget, the minister responsible, Minister Wyatt, said:
The Australian Government has committed $40 million under the Better Start to Life approach to progressively expand the ANFPP from three sites to 13, by 30 June 2018.
Clearly, there will not be 13 sites funded by June 2018, and we would like to know what has happened to the money that was allocated to those sites. Will there be additional sites selected? What will be the process for their selection? When will it be done, so that we can meet the commitment which the government itself has made to have these new programs commenced by the middle of 2018? They are very important, and we support their expansion, but it is important that we understand what the government is actually proposing in the budget. It is very hard to tell.
The other issue I want to talk about very briefly is funding for the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service. CAALAS's current funding is due to expire in December 2017, and there is no indication that it will be renewed. In 2016 CAALAS provided 8,342 legal services to its clients across Central Australia. In 2016 its lawyers each handled an average of 491 cases. It provides a duty lawyer every day at the courts in Alice Springs and attends every single bush court in the region. It also does important work for the Royal Commission into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory. The funding of CAALAS is extremely important for the provision of justice to Aboriginal people who live in Central Australia, and it is up to the government to make sure that this funding is provided.
The Attorney-General may have a reason—I do not know what that reason could possibly be—that he will not guarantee funding beyond December this year for this service. Other Aboriginal legal services have been assured of their funding as part of a reversal of planned cuts to community legal centres and ATSILS which were due to happen in July this year. These organisations need to engage staff to make sure that they have security of employment. They supply an essential service for the justice system and for Aboriginal people in Central Australia. So it is up to the government, and up to the Attorney-General, to make sure that sufficient funding is made available so that they can continue to operate.
As I say, we see the Prime Minister carrying on like a pork chop most question times, and we need to appreciate that the palaver that we are hearing from him has very little to do with the real world. When he was asked a series of questions today—very good questions, I would have thought—about the impact of a tax measure, he was simply unable to answer. He was asked a simple question about taxing the banks and then allowing them to write it off as a business expense in the taxation system. He was asked what that means in terms of the dollars that will be spent, and he was unable to tell us. It demonstrates just how disingenuous the Prime Minister really is. (Time expired)
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (18:48): I am pleased to rise today to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018 and particularly to use this opportunity to outline the Turnbull government's very substantial commitments to infrastructure investment. Indeed, a centrepiece of the 2017 Turnbull government budget is a $75 billion infrastructure funding and financing program, extending from 2017-18 through to 2026-27, to deliver critical infrastructure projects right across the country.
A key feature of this budget is a major commitment to rail investment. The new $10 billion National Rail Program will fund transformational rail projects so that people can move our cities and regions more efficiently and so that our cities are better connected to their surrounding regional areas. We are providing an additional $8.4 billion equity investment into the Australian Rail Track Corporation to enable the delivery of the transformational Melbourne to Brisbane inland rail project. Together with nearly $800 million for new rail projects in Perth, over $550 million for rail in Victoria and our $10 billion National Rail Program, the government's total investment in rail in this budget reaches some $20 billion.
Of course, there is investment in many other areas in this budget as well. We make a $5.3 billion commitment to an equity investment in Western Sydney Airport. This is part of our plan to have Western Sydney Airport operational by 2026. Our Western Australian package also includes some $800 million, in conjunction with the Western Australian government, for new road projects, including works on Armadale Road, the Kwinana Freeway and regional road projects to improve road safety in regional Western Australia. The budget contains funding for new road projects in New South Wales and Queensland, including $844 million towards priority projects on the Bruce Highway.
As part of this budget the government is establishing the Infrastructure Financing and Project Agency, to be set up as an independent authority to further explore ways to be innovative in our approach to funding and financing infrastructure. This is so we can drive the Commonwealth's taxpayer dollar further in delivering the infrastructure projects so vitally needed around Australia. This budget also sees a commitment to maintain the funding levels of Infrastructure Australia.
Let me speak in some more detail about the National Rail Program. The rationale for this program is a recognition that investment in public transport networks—in rail networks, in particular—is a critical part of easing congestion and boosting productivity, both in our cities and in their surrounding regional areas. The $10 billion National Rail Program aligns with the Turnbull government's broader cities agenda, because it recognises that urban rail projects can be truly city shaping. They provide opportunities for urban regeneration, to unlock land for affordable housing and to promote and stimulate better urban planning. The Turnbull government plans to work with state governments and to cooperate in the planning process, with a view to ensuring that Commonwealth funding is targeted towards projects that will have the biggest impact.
Of course, the investments we are making in this budget build on existing Australian government funding for a wide range of significant rail projects around Australia, including the Gold Coast light rail in Queensland, the Forrestfield Airport Link in Perth, Flinders Link in South Australia, planning work on Cross River Rail in Queensland and work underway as part of the joint scoping study between the New South Wales and Commonwealth governments to invest in rail options for the future of Western Sydney Airport.
As part of the Asset Recycling Initiative, the Turnbull government is providing $1.7 billion in funding for the Sydney Metro project, a transformational rail project that will connect Chatswood to south-western Sydney. There is a $98.4 million commitment for Sydney's Rail Future and $78.3 million for Parramatta Light Rail. And in the ACT there is $67.1 million for Capital Metro.
Let me speak in a bit more detail about some of the commitments in the rail area in this budget. We are going to provide $792 million towards rail projects in Perth, to help ease congestion and to improve connectivity across that city. This funding includes over $700 million for the Thornlie and Yanchep line extensions, subject to satisfactory business cases being provided to Infrastructure Australia. It includes $26.8 million for the development of those business cases, $49.6 million for the Denny Avenue and Davis Road level crossing removal and $15.6 million for the relocation of the Herne Hill Depot.
On the other side of the country we have made a $500 million commitment to regional rail in Victoria, designed to improve connectivity of regional cities to and from Melbourne. This includes upgrades to the North East line, the Gippsland line and the Geelong Line, and a study into future improvements to the Shepparton rail line. There is also a commitment of $30 million for the development of the business case for the Melbourne Airport rail link. There is a rail link between Sydney and Sydney Airport. There is a rail link between Brisbane and Brisbane airport. There is a rail link under construction between Perth and Perth Airport. A city of the size of Melbourne and a city with the growth prospects of Melbourne is a city which needs an airport rail link. Indeed, the corridor between Melbourne's CBD and Tullamarine airport has been identified by Infrastructure Australia as one of the most heavily congested in Melbourne.
I want to speak for a moment about one of the specific elements in the budget, which is a process to encourage ideas for faster rail connections between major capital cities and regional centres by committing $20 million to support private sector proponents and state governments for the development of project business cases. The Turnbull government intends to carry out a three-step process to identify projects to receive funding. It will start by issuing a prospectus describing the program and the opportunities and calling for initial proposals in response. We aim to have those initial proposals being sought by September this year.
Proposals could come from private sector proponents or consortiums, such as consortiums of property owners and developers and specialist high-speed rail companies. State governments might also bring forward such proposals. For example, such proposals might involve a proposal for a new stretch of line which would connect into an existing line into one of our big cities and provide rail access to new greenfields areas where a new town or towns would be built by a developer or consortium of developers. So that is one possible class of proposals which might be brought forward. Alternatively, another class of proposals might involve state governments bringing forward proposals to improve or to extend existing lines between one of our major cities and a surrounding regional area. Those proposals might involve improvements to bridges or tunnels or gradients which presently slow down trains. They could involve replacing stretches of winding or steep track which prevent trains running at high speed. They could involve the electrification of track which presently can only be used by diesel trains. The proposals could involve new-generation signalling and train control technology which would allow trains to be run more frequently on a given line.
The prospectus to be issued will specify the criteria that would be applied by the Australian government in selecting from the initial proposals a shortlist of up to three projects that would go forward to a business case development stage. Those criteria would include such matters as the time savings over existing means of travel to the regional locations, including both existing rail means of travel and other means of travel such as road, the extent of new housing opportunities that might be opened up and of course value for money, with the key factor to be the number of new users of the new or upgraded line delivered per million dollars invested.
The next stage of this process would be business case development, intended to be completed by the middle of 2018. The Australian government will be committing a total of up to $20 million for the development of up to three business cases, and the Australian government's funding would be intended to match funding provided by the project proponent, with the Australian government's commitment to any one business case capped at $8 million. Once provided, the business cases would be assessed by Infrastructure Australia. The final stage would be a decision by the Australian government as to whether it would provide funding to one or more of these business cases. The Turnbull government expects decisions would be made in relation to at least one business case in time to allow a funding commitment to be made by the end of 2018.
Another source of information that will inform decisions to be made about the allocation of funding under the National Rail Program will be the urban rail plans, which are presently under development through joint work between the Commonwealth government and state governments, for Australia's five largest cities and their surrounding regions. This initiative was announced in November 2016 in response to Infrastructure Australia's 15-year plan. The urban rail plans will consider global trends and drivers of urban rail, including technology developments and changing demographic patterns as well as linkages between rail and urban planning.
Let me turn to speak about the Turnbull government's commitment to Western Sydney Airport. After decades of indecision, the Turnbull government has committed to building a second Sydney airport at Badgerys Creek. Western Sydney Airport will be a major catalyst for the future growth and prosperity of Western Sydney. In this budget the Turnbull government has committed up to $5.3 billion to build the Western Sydney Airport through a new company to be established, WSA Co.
A new airport for Western Sydney will deliver the people of Western Sydney improved access to aviation services, it will deliver much-needed aviation capacity in the Sydney Basin and it will, very importantly, deliver significant new employment and economic activity in Western Sydney. Western Sydney Airport is expected to deliver around 20,000 direct and indirect jobs by the early 2030s and 60,000 over the long term. Initial works are scheduled to commence by the end of 2018, and the airport will be operational by 2026. Governments are able to take a long-term view when it comes to investing in major infrastructure assets. The business case for Western Sydney Airport has been assessed by Infrastructure Australia, and it has been found that this project would deliver long-term net benefits to the Australian economy.
Of course, it is also very important that, as we plan for Western Sydney Airport, there is extensive community consultation. That is why the Turnbull government has established the Forum On Western Sydney Airport, a community consultation mechanism with some 22 members included, as well as the chair, Professor Peter Shergold AC, Chancellor of Western Sydney University.
The airport is being supported through the $3.6 billion Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan, funded by the Australian government and the New South Wales government, which includes extensive upgrading of existing roads. For example, the Northern Road is to be upgraded to four lanes, Bringelly Road and Werrington Road are also being extensively upgraded, and there will be a new M12 Motorway that will run from the airport to the M7, connecting the airport to the Sydney motorway network.
In addition, the government is undertaking a joint study into the rail needs of Western Sydney and Western Sydney Airport with the New South Wales government. That study is looking at the question of what the right route should be, how much it will cost, when it should be built and how it should be funded. The scoping study is expected to report to the two governments by the middle of this year, and the two governments will have more to say about the way forward following that.
So this budget demonstrates that the Turnbull government is delivering on a significant infrastructure investment program. It was notable that, by contrast, in the Leader of the Opposition's budget reply speech, a speech of over 4,000 words, the word 'infrastructure' was used only three times. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition struggled to fill even a single paragraph with statements about infrastructure. That may be the approach that the opposition wishes to take, but the Turnbull government is very strongly committed to infrastructure. We have had a very strong program in infrastructure since the coalition came to government in 2013, and this 2017 budget sees a very significant extension of our commitments to infrastructure, with a $75 billion infrastructure investment program between now and 2026-27, supporting a very wide range of projects all around the country—road, rail, airports and others.
Infrastructure is vitally important to the economic performance of Australia and to being able to move people and freight quickly and efficiently around our cities and our regions. It is also absolutely critical to livability so that people can get from home to work and back quickly and efficiently every day. Infrastructure is one of the major responsibilities of government, and the 2017 budget contained a $75 billion commitment to infrastructure as one of its centrepieces. I very strongly welcome that and commend that to the House.
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (19:03): I would also like to offer my contribution on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018. When it comes to this government, this budget proves that you should pay attention not to what it says but to what it does. That is very clearly something that we should have learnt, particularly coming off their zombie measures. We know that their actions speak louder than words. Bear in mind that this is the government of Work Choices. This is the government that sought to cut the living standards of pensioners, those on disability support and unemployed young people. Now they want us to believe they have changed. Jeez, I tell you what: Crosby Textor must be working overtime these days. The budget does nothing to protect the everyday lives of Australians. It has clearly failed the fairness test. It fails to address the growing inequity in Australian society.
How is it fair that the only tax cuts coming out of this budget apply to millionaires and big business?
What type of government robs schoolchildren and university students of $22 billion, on the basis of handing out a $65 billion tax cut to big business? It means that, on average, $2.4 million per school will be lost.
This is a government that certainly needs to do some reviewing of its priorities. I remind everybody here that an investment in education is an investment in our future—it is an investment in this country's future. I think that is something that has been lost on the government.
Schools in my community will suffer over the next two years from a staggering $37.5 million being taken out of the schools in the Fairfield and Liverpool areas. To put this is in some perspective, I would like to cite just two examples of schools which are to be very hard hit. Cabramatta High School is set to lose a massive $3.9 million over the next two years, and Canley Vale High School will lose $3.6 million over the same period. These figures raise a huge question mark over how the current government sees the future of education—as a matter of fact, over how they see the future of children.
Bear in mind: these cuts apply to schools in my electorate, an electorate that plays host to a disproportionately large number of migrant and refugee communities—one of the largest number of migrant and refugee communities in the country. There are students with special needs: students for whom English is not a first language. These cuts will no doubt make it more difficult for teachers and schools in our community.
The unfairness does not stop there. Health cuts are also at the heart of this government's unfair budget—a government that is asking everyday Australians to pay more for health care, cutting Medicare and threatening bulk billing. This is a government that does nothing to protect vulnerable Australians and the health of our nation. It is clear that this government has no intention of making health care a priority for everyday Australians, proving that their values do not lie in an inclusive, smart and healthy nation.
I have learnt a fair bit about the health system of late. You might put it down to personal experience. But I must say that I am in awe of the dedication and the professionalism of all those serving our community, attending emergencies and caring for our fellow Australians.
On 26 February this year, I had, as many would be aware, a rather serious motorcycle accident just outside Queanbeyan. It is the first accident I have had in over 40 years of motorcycling. As a result of the accident, I spent 15 days in the Canberra Hospital, six days of which were in intensive care. I broke several ribs and suffered a collapsed lung as well as significant internal injuries.
For what started out to be a pleasant afternoon of motorcycling to end up in ICU in a world of pain certainly remains a nightmare. However, I consider myself to be very fortunate that Senior Constable Mark Smith of the Queanbeyan highway patrol was in the immediate vicinity at the time of my accident. He was probably booking somebody! But, nevertheless, he was there. And an off-duty nurse, Donna Hodgson, who was passing with her husband, stopped to render me assistance. Donna and Senior Constable Smith sat beside me, keeping me talking to ensure that I did not pass out after the accident. Being in shock, I could not remember, for instance, the security code on my mobile phone, but, after talking to these two good Samaritans, eventually I recalled that code and Senior Constable Smith was then able to notify my wife, Bernadette, of what had occurred and to have her meet me at Canberra Hospital. Meanwhile, Donna Hodgson was able to get word through to Parliament House security, alerting them to what had just occurred as well.
Despite the serious nature of the accident, as I say, I consider myself very fortunate that this police officer was immediately to hand and that this nurse, who was travelling with her husband, simply saw it and unselfishly pulled off the road and attended to me until the paramedics arrived. They certainly made a difference for the better in my particular circumstances. In Canberra Hospital, both Donna and Senior Constable Smith visited me on a number of occasions, checking on my welfare.
I would think it is probably not likely that there would be many interactions with officers of the highway patrol where members of the public might be so moved to write a letter of commendation to their commissioner. I did on this occasion. I thought this officer went well beyond what I considered his duties to show me care. To Donna Hodson, who was carrying an injury at the time, for stopping and staying with me until the ambulance arrived, I am indeed very grateful.
Given the impact of the accident on my wife, Bernadette, and my family, I have agreed to put motorcycling behind me, with a fair degree of regret, and the minister at the table would appreciate it. Nevertheless, I will stay involved with the various motorcycle safety campaigns that I have always been associated with. I will particularly stay involved with the police Wall To Wall Ride for Remembrance, which is now one of the biggest motorcycle rides in the country, in order to show our support for the police, particularly to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the course of their duties.
I am certainly very indebted to this particular police officer and to this particular nurse. They have shown professionalism and a profound sense of care and compassion. They did what they were not necessarily obliged to do, and it certainly made a difference for the better for me. In turn, I will also thank the ambos who came, managed to get my helmet off, cut me out of my leather jacket, shredded me out of my jeans and everything else, and probably filled me with morphine as well. I do not really recall the pain as I was travelling to hospital.
On arriving at hospital, I was processed in the emergency department. They were very professional people and they cared for my wife as well, but once the scans showed that I had a lacerated spleen the tempo sort of changed object and I found myself in the intensive care unit for the next six days, undergoing a number of operations. I would like to particularly thank from the Canberra Hospital's trauma team Dr Frank Piscioneri, Dr Thembikile Ncube, Dr Nicole Rodrigues and Dr Yunfei Hun. They are certainly very, very skilled and dedicated young people working very long hours and they are all there to assist those of us in need. I would also like to mention the nursing staff—Kate Evans, Thimitra Panteleon, Rebekah Ogilvie and Lisa Farrall—not only for what they did for me but also for the way they stayed in contact with my wife, ensuring that everyone knew what was going on and that they were kept in the loop. I think that had a huge impact on my recovery, but it certainly also made a very significant contribution to settling down my family.
When I wanted to travel back to Sydney, the nursing staff and doctors at Canberra made arrangements with the Liverpool Hospital's trauma team and with the Camden Hospital's fracture clinic. As I stand here, I am held together by plates and screws and probably rubber bands and other things, but it is very nice to sometimes—as I did the other day when I had a sore throat—think, 'At least I can feel it.' The alternative was a little bit more dire than that, so it has probably changed my outlook on life a little bit and put me in touch with my own mortality. Sometimes these things can happen in the blink of an eye and, as my mother keeps saying—she is a very religious woman—'You should keep your bags packed, because you never know when you're really going to go travelling.' I will take mum's comment on board.
I would like to thank all of my colleagues here in this rather eclectic work environment for sending their wellwishes. It was not just my Labor colleagues who I received emails and wellwishes from. I received many from all those on the other side and the minister at the table did say that he certainly felt my pain and that he thought perhaps as an alternative to motorcycling I might take up sports-car racing with him. I will get back to him on that; I have not checked it with Bernadette!
It does show that all here care for one another. Those who turned up, I thank them for it. Those who turned up and who I cannot remember, I still thank them for it! With the amount of drugs that I was on, my recollections of being in the intensive care unit are very scratchy at best.
And to my wife—I had better thank her! Today is our 41st wedding anniversary. I did not get choked up when we got married, but 40 years later I am working up to it. When you are a mother—and, in Bernadette's case, when you are a grandmother of 10—you sort of sign on to do various things. You wash and look after your kids—bath them and do all that sort of stuff. I do not think that she realised when I came out of hospital—covered in plaster, my leg in a brace, my arms in the air and all the rest of it—that I had to be washed and that my bandages had to be treated every day. She certainly did that. I can say that much of my motorbike was mostly written off and has been repatriated slightly into her jewellery box as a sign of some appreciation for all that additional care that she had to show me. I have indicated to a few people that one of the upsides of this incident is the fact that I was able to spend more time with my wife.
As I said, I also think it is time to reflect on all those in our community who unselfishly undertake careers and professions to work very long hours to look after the community. I mean those doctors in the trauma teams in emergency; the nurses and the ambos who attend; the police officers; and members of the community, such as Donna Hodgson, who pulled off the road to see whether she could help. It shows that we live in a very fine country. There are a lot of good people. We can sit here and argue about various things which are matters of state, but one of the things we should be very proud of is the people who serve our community. Much of what we should be looking to do in budgets, like the one we have before us, is to make sure that we do everything that we can to help those people who make a change for the better in the lives of many in our society.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for giving me some indulgence; I did not spend too much time on the budget. I will work up to that as the bills are introduced progressively into the House. I am sure I will find a number of things to say. But this is an opportunity to come in here and to thank all my colleagues for their care and concern, and also to thank all those who offered prayers on my behalf. I did get a call from Father Frank Brennan, to tell me the Jesuits were praying for me. I thought that was probably a good thing! It is just nice to know that, despite our differences, we do care for one another.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Craig Kelly ): I thank the member for Fowler. I would just like to add that it is good to see him back, fighting fit. I would also like to acknowledge his wife, who is here in the advisers box. I am glad that she has given him the advice to give up the bike!
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (19:18): I too wish to give my best wishes to the member for Fowler. Welcome back—you are looking fighting fit! I look forward to ensuring that our healthy love of debate will continue, which is what it is all about. But, indeed, there are times when we stop, pause and take stock of what is important. It is good for you to have your wife here today too. Rest assured that we on this side of the House have been with you and that it is good to see you in good health.
I will move on to more sombre issues, maybe, in talking about the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-18, the related bills and the budget. Can I say, as a relatively new member of this House, how delighted I am to be speaking about this year's federal budget—a budget that ultimately does represent fairness, security and opportunity for the existing generation of Australians and also sets Australia up for the years ahead. Let me start by making the point that context counts, particularly for the Australian federal budget, given that we are such an open, liberalised, free market economy working within a highly integrated international economy. What we see within the global economy is renewed investment and optimism. We see some of our key trading partners, key investment partners, having their own economies find renewed optimism. We are finding this in particular from the likes of the United States. We are seeing it also with a bounce in China. This sets the scene for better days ahead for the Australian economy and, therefore, for the everyday Australian citizen.
That is why you see that the economic transition underway within Australia is gaining momentum. As we come off the back of the mining investment boom, we see an Australian economy that is diversifying across other sectors. We are seeing growth come into those other sectors while our resource exports are still looking for a positive trajectory moving forward, as are our service exports. This is why we see a growth forecast of 2¾ per cent in 2017-18 and up to three per cent in 2018-19. This all translates into jobs. Indeed, jobs has been the mantra of this government from the get go, and it will continue to be so.
The budget tabled by the Treasurer promotes jobs not in a fiscally irresponsible manner such as those opposite are renowned for—a 'hold nothing back, stimulus by any account' approach—but, rather, in a fiscally responsible manner. So much as it is optimistic, based on that broader international context and strong growth rates, the underlying assumptions about Australia's growth within this budget are actually below those forecast by other authoritative bodies, including the IMF. So we have relatively conservative assumptions on growth.
We also have a determination to ensure that real growth in payments is restricted to 1.9 per cent. So as we enjoy higher economic growth, and therefore increasing receipts, we are holding a very firm fiscal discipline of restricting an increase in payments to 1.9 per cent or lower. This also means that, as time goes on, we are going to see something Australians have been screaming out for for years; we are going to see that our everyday expenses do not need to be borrowed for come 2018-19. That is a very large commitment, and it is one that we have measured on very conservative assumptions. What it means is that the Australian nation will go back to days it has not seen since the coalition was previously in government, and we will have our current expenditures being covered by something other than debt. This is all about that often expressed comment that 'we need to live within our means'. Indeed, come 2018-19, we are going to be in a position where we are no longer borrowing just to keep the wheels in motion. Net debt will peak in 2018-19 and then decline over the forward estimates.
So it is a fiscally responsible budget but it is also a practical budget. Running government is not a matter of academia; the government took the very responsible decision to withdraw measures that were in previous budgets that we could not get through parliament. So, you have about $13.5 billion of budget withdrawn at the time of this most recent budget being tabled—which is why you also see that the government is trying to meet the Labor Party halfway over several measures while also dealing so productively with the crossbenchers and of course all of those in the Senate.
We need to make sure that this budget passes so that small businesses in particular can be the winners. We do know that small businesses are the main ones creating jobs throughout Australia, and in particular in regional and rural areas that have been most hit with unemployment struggles over recent years. That is why I am very excited, being from a region where over 98 per cent of businesses are small businesses, that the government has already changed the definition of 'small business' from ones with a turnover of only $2 million a year to those with a turnover of up to $10 million a year.
This budget has also extended the $20,000 instant asset write-off. Small businesses certainly in my part of the world have been celebrating this $20,000 instant asset write-off. Keep in mind, of course, that by virtue of extending the $20,000 instant asset write-off while simultaneously seeing the increase in the definition of small business to a $10 million turnover means you have thousands of businesses across Australia who for the first time in the next financial year will be able to make good use of the instant asset write-off. Cutting red tape—regulatory reform—continues to be a focus of this government. We recognise that there are regulatory constraints imposed by other tiers of government, which is why I welcome the $300 million funding package in this year's budget to incentivise states and territories to reduce their own regulatory barriers, again improving life for small business.
It is worth at this point asking what would the Labor Party propose for small business. They have already made it very clear in their questions during today's question time. Their questions homed in on the aggregate cost of the government's Enterprise Tax Plan. What they have so far failed to realise is that by prosecuting the case against that aggregate package, the aggregate cost of our proposed tax decreases for business, they are by default saying they are going to take a tax increase policy to the next election—as nearly half of the cost of the government's Enterprise Tax Plan has already been legislated for. So, with the opposition screaming today about the cost of tax decreases, every time we hear that from now on we will know that what they are really saying to small businesses, what the opposition is saying to any business with turnover of less than $10 million a year, is that they want to see them pay higher taxes. The Labor Party have confirmed today that they want small businesses to pay higher taxes. They are opposing legislated tax decreases. They are not having a moot debate about prospective policy here—they are very clearly talking about legislated tax decreases being reversed. That is why those in small business know that the Labor Party is no friend of small business.
But it is not just the fiscal responsibility and the practicality of this budget that is significant, nor is it only what the budget does for small business; indeed, it is the boost for the broader economy through game-changing infrastructure, with a commitment to over $70 billion for transport infrastructure—road, rail and air. Of course, we know that there is an $8.4 billion equity commitment—
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER (19:30): Order! It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Kingsford Smith Electorate: Housing Affordability
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (19:30): In the community that I represent in Sydney's south-eastern suburbs, housing affordability is now more topical than the weather. It is the No. 1 issue in our community. The cost of homes in suburbs such as Maroubra, Clovelly, Randwick and Kensington has skyrocketed. In the past three years, for example, property prices have increased by 44 per cent in Botany, 37 per cent in Coogee and a whopping 46 per cent in Malabar. That is not to say that they were cheap three years ago, because they were not. They have increased dramatically in the last three years, but they were quite expensive three years ago as well. In my community, the dream of owning your own home for many, including young people who have grown up locally and now want to buy a home and raise their own families locally, has become a nightmare.
As a result, not a week goes by when I do not get a complaint from a constituent about the cost of housing in our community and their anxiety about whether or not they will be able to continue to live in the community and, importantly, whether or not their kids will be able to afford to buy a house in the community that they grew up in, around their family networks and their friends. Recently I met with a Botany resident, Elizabeth Mansour. She wrote to me a very touching email that I think explains the plight of young people in our community. She wrote:
I am a 26-year-old currently residing in Botany with my family.
You are probably thinking I am a bit too old to still be living at home but the reality is, as much as I would love to move out, I simply can't afford it.
Upon completing my degree in 2014 I hoped that I would have enough money to purchase a unit or townhouse close to my family, work for a few years and save up enough so that when I returned to part-time work to complete my second degree I would be able to cover my mortgage and other expenses with no issue.
This had been my dream … since I was 8 or 9. Sadly, when the time came I did the maths and there was no way that would be possible. I quickly learnt I would not even be able to survive, not even on a full-time salary.
These are the words of a responsible young woman who is being prevented from making wise financial decisions and achieving dreams she has held since her childhood.
Another constituent recently wrote to me with this story:
I visited the new development at Pagewood last weekend in my futile search for something for my daughter.
1 bedroom apartments start at $750,000 … There is no way our kids can get in to this market and get a roof over their heads
On housing affordability, this government has completely failed Australians and in particular young first home buyers, who are desperately trying to break their way into the housing market. The government's latest efforts on housing affordability have been a dismal failure. Their failure is typified by the announcement at the recent budget about the use of superannuation funds to save for a deposit. The only thing this measure will achieve is further contributing to rising housing prices and keeping that elusive first property purchase out of reach for so many Australians. They continue to ignore the fact that massive tax concessions—the largest tax concessions in the world for property investors—exist here in Australia, and it is an unlevel playing field. First home buyers simply cannot compete when they go to auctions on the weekend. They are competing against people who get a handout from the government in the form of a tax concession and who may be negatively gearing their sixth or seventh investment property. It demonstrates just how out of touch this government is. If you are not restricting negative gearing and reducing the capital gains tax discount on selling a property, you are not serious about housing affordability and you are not serious about helping young Australians.
By contrast, Labor is serious about this issue and we are tackling housing affordability. We will do this by reforming negative gearing, restricting negative gearing to new properties and halving the capital gains tax discount. We will also introduce support for a uniform vacant properties tax across all major cities, limit direct borrowing by self-managed super funds in investment properties, increase foreign investor fees and penalties, establish a bond aggregator to increase investment in affordable housing, boost homelessness support for vulnerable Australians, and get better results from the National Rental Affordability Scheme and National Housing Affordability Agreement. That is a party that is serious about housing affordability. That is a party that is listening to people like Elizabeth Mansour.
Groom Electorate: Flanagan, Mr Kevin
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (19:35): I would like to recognise tonight the efforts of the retiring general manager of water and waste in the Toowoomba Regional Council, Mr Kevin Flanagan. Kevin has been in local government for more than 40 years and has most recently led Council's water supply, sewerage and waste management services. He is most often recognised as the person who guided our community through critical water shortages in the early 2000s. That drought-induced water supply crisis captured national and international attention. Indeed, it was our Prime Minister who, as former minister for water, considered future water supply options along with Kevin and other civic leaders during that period.
Those were tough years in our region. When the contentious plan to recycle wastewater back into our municipal supply was considered along with other options we had all the while the most severe water restrictions in Australia imposed upon our residents simply to preserve limited water supplies for high-priority potable use. Ultimately it was Kevin who managed negotiations with the then state government to secure a pipeline from Wivenhoe Dam to our east, in the Brisbane Valley, to provide for the capacity of 10,000 megalitres per year for our community. Thankfully the rains came and our water supplies were replenished. But Kevin and his team had educated our community about the need for sensible water supply management and a system of diverse supply options. His leadership regarding the Wetalla water treatment plant, water reticulation opportunities throughout the region, the development of the state-of-the-art Toowoomba waste management facility as part of an integrated regional plan, and restoration of the iconic Empire Theatre in Toowoomba are certainly legacies from his career of service to our region.
My wife, Anita, and I have had the great fortune of knowing Kevin and his wife, Libby, for quite some years. During the 1990s I first came to know Kevin in my membership of regional water planning groups convened by successive Queensland state governments. We had plenty of discussions about supply options for Toowoomba, and I stress that we did not always agree. He, like me, has a stubborn streak of Irish blood when engaged in debate. But with Kevin it was always heartfelt, passionate, robust and, above all else, respectful. As a councillor with our regional council, it was good to develop a close working relationship with Kevin. Again, in the interests of constructive debate about innovative technologies and management of our water, sewerage and waste services, we probably did not always agree, but I could always be assured that his efforts were in the best interests of our community and our region and in line with his professional standards and ethics as an engineer.
It was good then, too, to continue to engage with Kevin during my subsequent years in the Queensland parliament on municipal, industrial and rural water supplies, agricultural waste management and in particular a new regional infrastructure requirement focus. More recently I have witnessed Kevin firsthand stepping forward to find solutions to the Oakey PFAS water contamination issue—including, I must say, the provision of town water to affected properties as funded by the Turnbull government in allocations announced in the federal budget brought down in this chamber just two weeks ago.
As Council's chief executive officer, Mr Brian Pidgeon, has commented in local media, 'Kevin’s expertise, as well as his sense of humour will be greatly missed' as he steps down from his current role. That sort of humour, that sort of understanding of our community, that sort of professionalism and focus on the region, particularly the community, are the hallmarks of Kevin Flanagan's career in our community. He will, despite his retirement, which is now underway, hopefully remain available to share a joke, to provide advice and to have a beer in discussion about our beautiful region of the Darling Downs. That is exactly what leaders in our local community—particularly our regional council—are recognised for doing from one end of our region to another. I salute Kevin Flanagan for his service to our community. I wish him, his wife, Libby, and their entire family all the very best for the future.
Gorton Electorate: Roads
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (19:40): The government's budget has failed in many ways, but it has particularly failed the residents of my electorate of Gorton when it comes to infrastructure funding. The western suburbs of Melbourne, as this place knows, is one of the fastest-growing areas in the country. With housing, on average, less exorbitant than other parts of Melbourne, my electorate is home to many young families who are looking to have a decent life. Often they are there because they are part of the community but also because they are priced out of other areas. People have been flocking to this area. There are good schools and a good sense of community. There is relatively close access to the CBD and to the airport. It really is growing exponentially. Eleven new suburbs have recently been announced in my electorate within the city of Melton alone. In fact, the eventual population in the next 10 years of the city of Melton is projected to be in excess of 400,000—more than Canberra. With this extraordinary and, I would say, fantastic increase in population comes a strain on our resources and our existing infrastructure. Our roads are becoming more congested and more unsafe every day, yet the substantial federal funding required for upgrades to the major roads has not been forthcoming by this government.
Despite lobbying from the local community and councils, no funds were made available for an upgrade to the Western Highway between Caroline Springs and Melton. This is not some minor backstreet; the Western Highway is the major road corridor between Melbourne and Adelaide. It is the second-busiest national highway in Australia in terms of freight movement. It is used not just for the residents of my electorate to access education, employment, training and leisure but for major freight transport both interstate and regionally. The required upgrade to the Western Highway, including a new interchange to serve the Melton West area is genuinely needed, to serve not just the community but more than 50,000 vehicles that travel in each direction every day. Unfortunately, the government is ignoring this need.
The duplication of the Melton Highway between Hillside and Melton is another project that must be funded. As more families move to the suburbs along that major road, the highway is becoming increasingly busy and dangerous. Too many fatalities have already occurred on that stretch of road. The much-needed duplication will ease this congestion, but a commitment to provide funds is needed for this to happen.
Additionally, the Calder Park Drive overpass is a desperately needed infrastructure upgrade that residents in my electorate have been calling out for for years. When Labor was last in government we widened the Western Ring Road and built the Kings Road overpass. We desperately need the Calder Park Drive overpass. No commitment has been made by this government.
Ms Chesters: Hear, hear!
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Thank you, member for Bendigo. Although this is not a line item in the budget, I understand planning money has been allocated for this project, but no commitment has been given. Whilst this is a positive first step, we need a commitment that this project will proceed and the appropriate funds allocated. As I said, it was the federal Labor government that secured significant infrastructure projects for the Gorton electorate, including funding for $50 million for the Calder Freeway/Kings Road interchange project. The Calder Park Drive overpass is an important continuation of the previous Labor upgrades which the Turnbull government must commit to.
Labor recognises that Melbourne's western suburbs are experiencing significant growth, and Gorton remains one of the fastest-growing electorates in the country. That is why we believe in the importance of investing in road infrastructure to keep pace with population growth. This government, I say, has been failing the residents of Gorton by refusing to commit to funding the roads we need. This is a crucial issue. I have many constituents concerned that not enough investment is occurring in our region and in our electorate. Indeed, Victorians have been robbed of infrastructure spending as a result of the federal budget. The Liberals do not invest in the west of Melbourne. It is about time that they looked at the growth in this area and realised that it is critical that they start investing in the west and start making sure that constituents of my electorate are given every opportunity to have good roads, uncongested roads, safer roads and better infrastructure for leisure and for work to ensure that this remarkable area of Melbourne is looked after like every other part of Melbourne.
Welfare Reform
Mr MORTON (Tangney) (19:45): I am in this place to do everything I can to make lives better. I am in this place to empower people to take control of their lives and for government, where it needs to, to co-invest in an individual's future, to help hardworking Australians reach their full potential. This is my absolute focus when we look at social policy and our welfare system. Sadly, the lazy application of cash as welfare in some cases is making lives worse, not better. I have seen firsthand in my own family how drugs burn even the closest of bonds, and I have seen the intersection of welfare and drugs in our community.
The cashless debit card—also known as the healthy welfare card—is changing lives for the better, and the strong independent evaluation results of the trial tell us just how big the positive impact is. The card is not a silver bullet—we know and acknowledge that—but it is an important tool in the fight against alcohol and drug abuse and the violence and crime that come with that. The trial has been effective in reducing alcohol consumption, illegal drug use and gambling. Twenty-five per cent of participants and 13 per cent of family members reported drinking alcohol less frequently. Thirty-two per cent of participants and 15 per cent of family members reported gambling less. Twenty-four per cent reported using illegal drugs less often.
But I am not someone who just believes reports. So I travelled to Kununurra and Wyndham earlier this year to see the trial of the healthy welfare card and to understand from community leaders and locals how the card was making their community better. I met with many people who supported the card and I met with some who do not in Kununurra and Wyndham. The number of pick-ups made by the Kununurra Community Patrol Service for Alcohol in January 2017 was 19 per cent lower than in January 2016. Admissions to the Wyndham Sobering-up Unit in September 2016 were 49 per cent lower than before the trial began in September 2015. Ambulance alcohol-related call-outs were down by some 30 per cent. And the sales at the Wyndham bottle shop have dropped by over 40 per cent. But some sales are up. In visiting the Wyndham supermarket I asked questions about what products were selling more so now than previously. Baby products are being sold more so now as a percentage than previously. Food, particularly fish fingers, have gone through the roof. Fish fingers are not perhaps the best dinner, but any food in the belly is better than grog in the belly of a parent.
I met with community leaders who helped me get to the nuts and bolts of this policy. I met with mums at the Wyndham Early Learning Activity Centre. I met with the Chamber of Commerce and a number of health and cultural organisations. I met with the police and I heard firsthand about how they were being called out less for alcohol-fuelled call-outs. And I spent a 12-hour shift overnight, from 6 pm to 6 am, with the volunteers at the St John Ambulance at Kununurra. What an amazing experience that was! In Kununurra, the ambulance service is provided by volunteers, and on each of the call-outs—which I will not go into in detail—alcohol played a significant part. Those ambulance volunteers, who deal with alcohol illness and the violent consequences of that, told me that the card is making a big difference. This is a big step forward. The card is working well, but there are some limitations on the way the card is being trialled, because royalty payments continue to inject cash into this community. Sly grogging from neighbouring communities is a problem, as is the influx of people from out of town who are not participating in the cashless debit card trial.
There is some concern in communities that the healthy welfare card, or the cashless debit card, is targeting Indigenous communities. But, for me, this card is not just for Indigenous communities, and I am very pleased that the government has announced further communities to be added to the trial. I hope that, with the addition of new communities, non-Indigenous communities will also participate. Community leaders across Australia are lobbying to be included in the extension of this program, wanting to be part of making lives better.
The healthy welfare card is a policy about all Australians. I congratulate the Minister for Social Services and the Minister for Human Services for their commitment to this important trial. Their reforms announced in the extension of the healthy welfare card and the greater mutual obligation provisions for welfare recipients are bold but fair, and they have my full support. Working age welfare should not be compensation for the situation someone finds themselves in. Rather, it must be an investment in where they can go. The lazy application of cash is not working. It is not making lives better. The healthy welfare card, the cashless debit card, is making a positive difference, and I fully support the rollout of that card to further communities.
Budget
Mr ROB MITCHELL (McEwen) (19:50): Once again the Liberal government has delivered a budget that supports big business and high-income earners and leaves hardworking families throughout McEwen as the biggest losers. Once again I am left wondering whether the Prime Minister and Treasurer actually know where places such as Sunbury, Mernda, Doreen, Craigieburn or Wallan are. We have seen an awful lot of money in this budget for Sydney, Western Australia and Queensland, but not a cent for us. Less than 12 months ago Labor committed $180 million for our towns and suburbs with the election of a Labor government. The Turnbull government delivered us zero—nothing, nada. Where is the funding we need for the critical infrastructure we need, like the duplication of Bridge Inn Road? Where is the commitment to local health and community services? Where is the much-needed school and hospital funding? The government, we know, owes Victoria $1.46 billion to invest in our projects under the asset recycling agreement signed in 2014. Alongside the Andrews Labor government, we had a plan to use this funding to revive regional rail across Victoria. This budget has delivered no promises to better McEwen. It is plain wrong.
We have heard several times that the Treasurer's budget is about choices; that there are better days ahead and it is making things right. Then why are the choices they are making only benefiting big business? Why are the better days only for multinationals? Why is the only job-saving measure a rescue package for the Prime Minister? Unsurprisingly, this budget is for millionaires, not for working people. Debt is on the rise, taxes on the rise, unemployment is on the rise and the Prime Minister's tax cut is also on the rise. The Turnbull government is giving millionaires a $16,400 tax cut, leaving the rest of the community to pick up the Slack and roll up our sleeves, while the government-supported penalty rates cut will cost our community some $19.2 million. Do not fret—the government says it has sugarcoated the budget, to trick us into thinking we are all winners.
That is why I am here—to talk about the truth hidden behind the distracting hand gestures and fancy glasses-waving. The government say they are putting more money into schools, but what they are leaving out is that schools will actually get $22 billion less than they would have under a Labor government. Over the next two years alone Labor would have invested $3 billion more than the Liberals in our schools. If we average that out, the Turnbull government's cuts would mean losing $2.4 million from every Australian school, which is the equivalent of sacking 22,000 teachers. To make matters worse, the Turnbull government is waging a war on public schools, meaning that one in seven public schools will not even reach a fair level of funding in the next 10 years. But the government's attacks on education do not end in schools. Our universities and our university students are going to be worse off than ever before. The government wants to hike up university fees while they cut $3.8 billion from universities and make students pay back more debt when they are earning less. The irony that a government full of people who got free education are now telling the rest of us that we cannot! The Labor Party will not stand for this. We will continue to fight for quality education for future generations.
Prime Minister Turnbull went to the election saying that no-one would pay more to see a GP, but here we are today and there is still no action on reversing the Medicare cuts for another three years. Australians will have to wait more than 12 months for relief, and will be left waiting more than two years for the freeze on specialist procedures and allied health services to be lifted. The budget means that cancer patients will still be paying more for blood tests. It means that pregnant women are still paying more for scans and tests to monitor their babies' health. It means that 1.2 million Australians living with diabetes still pay more for their regular check-ups. The cherry on the cake is that we all still have to pay more to see a doctor.
Why is the Liberal government making basic services such as health care a luxury for the people of McEwen and Australia? The Treasurer said this budget is about choices, and the government has clearly made a choice when it comes to my community. The choice in this budget is that the rich get a tick and the poor get a kick. The budget is leaving McEwen behind, it is leaving Australians behind and it reminds us that if we want Canberra to know we exist, we have to change the government.
Small Business
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (19:55): I rise today to highlight the mighty effort our small business owners put into the economy. There are 5.6 million people employed by small businesses across the country. I know my colleagues on this side of the House are passionate about fighting to help improve the environment for these businesses so they can thrive, employ more people, pay better and experience more growth. There are 16,821 small businesses operating in Flynn, including farmers such as cattle producers, those cultivating small crops, broadacre farmers, wheat and cotton growers, and those producing macadamia nuts, mangoes, blueberries, citrus, sugar cane, grapes and melons. Of course there are retailers such as stock and station agents, wholesalers, hotel-motels, caravan parks and gemfields, to name just a few. The corporate rate being cut from 30 to 27.5 per cent is a blessing for these companies. Over the next 10 years we plan to reduce the corporate tax rate further, to 25 per cent. There will be a huge improvement for small business, and I have been swamped with praise for this new policy of the coalition government.
The other great policy we have fought for is extending the $20,000 instant asset write-off, which can be claimed multiple times throughout the year. This will free up businesses to spend money on good assets that they could not afford before. It helps small business to help small business—there are opportunities to upgrade and modernise equipment: farmers buy motorbikes from the local dealer and stores purchase new registers and computers. Ross and Andrea Drayton run a small business in Emerald—the Central Bike Centre. The $20,000 write-off and the corporate tax changes have certainly helped their business. It has been a godsend. They are employing another apprentice because of the boost to their business. Business is going well now and it is having a flow-on effect—they have opened a new store and are employing builders, cabinetmakers, electricians et cetera in setting up his new showroom. Now that the threshold has been moved from $2 million to $10 million in 2017-18, this will benefit thousands of extra businesses across Flynn and thousands of workers across the country.
If Australia is to compete with the rest of the world we must have a competitive tax rate. For example, Qatar, an oil-producing country in the Middle East, has a zero personal income tax rate and a 10 per cent rate for corporations. Ireland has a 20 to 40 per cent personal income tax rate and a 12.5 per cent corporate rate. No wonder Apple has set up its business in Ireland. In Singapore there is a 0 to 22 per cent personal tax rate and a 70 per cent corporate tax rate. The USA is about to move from a 35 per cent to a 15 per cent corporate rate, at Mr Trump's say-so. In the United Kingdom there is a 19 per cent corporate tax rate. Small businesses are the heavy lifters of our economy. I am proud to be part of a government fighting to help them help this country. Remember, it is all about jobs, jobs and more jobs!
House adjourned at 19:58
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Ms McGowan: to move:
That this House:
(1) establish a joint select committee, to be known as the Joint Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation, to inquire and report on the following matters:
(a) best practice approaches to regional development, considering Australian and international examples, that support:
(i) growing the rural and regional population base;
(ii) an equitable share of the rewards derived from rural and regional resources being received by regional communities;
(iii) growing and diversifying of the regional economic and employment base;
(iv) an improved quality of life for regional Australians;
(v) vibrant, more cohesive and engaged regional communities; and
(vi) a place-based approach that considers local circumstances and involves collective governance;
(b) decentralisation of Commonwealth entities or functions, as a mechanism to increase growth and prosperity in regional areas, considering Australian and international examples, including:
(i) examining the potential for decentralisation to improve governance and service delivery for all Australians, considering the administrative arrangements required for good government;
(ii) identifying the characteristics of entities that would be suited to decentralisation without impacting on the ability to perform their functions;
(iii) identifying the characteristics of locations suitable to support decentralised entities or functions, including consideration of infrastructure and communication connectivity requirements;
(iv) considering different models of decentralisation, including:
—relocation of all or part of a Commonwealth entity to a regional area;
—decentralisation of specific positons, with individual employees telecommuting, considering any limitations to this in current Australian Public Service employment conditions and rules; and
—co-location of decentralised Commonwealth entities or employees in existing regionally based Commonwealth or state government offices;
(c) examining the family, social and community impacts of decentralising;
(d) actions of the Commonwealth that would encourage greater corporate decentralisation and what can be learned from corporate decentralisation approaches, including:
(i) considering the role of the private sector in sustainably driving employment and growth opportunities in regional areas in both existing and new industries;
(ii) comparing the access to early stage equity and or debt finance of metropolitan and regional businesses for both start up and established businesses;
(iii) examining access to capital for regional business, including agribusiness, manufacturing and technology;
(iv) considering the adequacy of regional businesses access to early stage accelerators and incubators, including access to business mentors, business networks and capital (debt or equity);
(v) considering the adequacy to support the private sector to attract and retain skilled labour to regional areas; and
(vi) examining the extent to which employment and growth can be supported by growing existing and new industries in regional areas, leveraging strong transport and communications connectivity; and
(e) any related matters;
(2) the committee consist of 12 members: 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips and 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by any minority group or independent Member, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 2 Senators to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(3) every nomination of a member of the Committee be notified in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate;
(4) the members of the Committee hold office as a joint select committee until presentation of the Committee's report or the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier;
(5) the Committee elect a:
(a) Government member as Chair; and
(b) non–Government member as Deputy Chair who shall act as Chair of the Committee at any time when the Chair is not present at a meeting of the Committee, and at any time when the Chair and Deputy Chair are not present at a meeting of the Committee the members present shall elect another member to act as Chair at that meeting;
(6) in the event of an equally divided vote, the Chair, or the Deputy Chair when acting as Chair, has a casting vote;
(7) three members of the Committee constitute a quorum of the Committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House, and one non–Government member of either House;
(8) the Committee has power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the Committee is empowered to examine;
(9) the Committee appoint the Chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only and at any time when the Chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as Chair at that meeting;
(10) two members of a subcommittee constitute the quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non–Government member of either House;
(11) members of the Committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(12) the Committee or any subcommittee:
(a) has power to call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) may conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(c) may sit in public or in private; and
(d) has power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(13) the Committee may report from time to time, but will produce an issues paper no later than 31 August 2017 and an interim report no later than 31 December 2017, with its final report no later than 28 February 2018;
(14) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(15) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
The following notices were given:
Mr Hammond: to move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) the rapid increase in the use of electronic communication technology in recent decades, including in commerce;
(b) that access to electronic communication technology differs between Australians, and is often related to income, age, education level and remoteness;
(c) that not all Australians have the skills and infrastructure to communicate effectively via electronic channels;
(d) that many businesses, including banks, telecommunications companies and utilities, charge consumers an extra fee to receive communications via post; and
(e) that often the fee charged by companies to receive communications by post are intended as a disincentive, and do not represent the actual cost incurred by the company; and
(2) calls on the Government to bring forward legislation that will give consumers the right to receive communications from companies by post for no extra fee.
Ms Templeman: to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Thompson Square, Windsor, is Australia's only surviving Georgian public town square;
(b) in 1810 Governor Lachlan Macquarie proclaimed Thompson Square as the first public place named to honour the contributions of an ex-convict, sending a strong message about Australia as a place of the 'fair go';
(c) the NSW Government's Windsor Bridge replacement project will result in a large modern concrete structure destroying the current Square;
(d) a community action group, Community Action for Windsor Bridge, has staged a 24 hour occupation of Thompson Square since 21 July 2013 in order to fight the NSW Government's plan;
(2) condemns the NSW Government for ignoring the advice of its own Office of Environment and Heritage, the Heritage Council of NSW and the National Trust; and
(3) calls on the Minister for the Environment and Energy to exercise his powers under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and grant emergency heritage listing to the Thompson Square Precinct to protect this unique place of Australia's cultural heritage.
Response to request for detailed information
None.
Questions without notice: Additional answers
None.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ) took the chair at 10:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
North Queensland: Infrastructure
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (10:30): I rise in this place to stand up for Townsville and to stand up against the Turnbull government's complete inaction in North Queensland. The Turnbull government seems to be hell-bent on doing absolutely nothing for Townsville's critical water and energy issues. What an absolute disappointment the federal budget was for Townsville and North Queensland! There was nothing in this budget for Townsville and North Queensland, and, to further rub salt into the wound, there was no mention of anything north of Brisbane. The Turnbull government's answer for regional infrastructure is a rail line from Melbourne to Brisbane. What an absolute slap in the face for North Queensland! This complete disregard shows me and the Townsville community that the Turnbull government does not see water security and energy in Townsville to be as important as building a rail line in the south.
So, allow me to provide you with a state of Townsville address. Our unemployment is at 11.3 per cent. Our youth unemployment is almost at 20 per cent. The Ross River Dam is now at 22 per cent after the city was left praying for water and, thankfully, our prayers were heard. Reports in today's Townsville Bulletin show our businesses are struggling with skyrocketing energy prices. Harbourside Coldstores' energy bill will increase by more than 31.5 per cent. Sun Metals, a large employer in Townsville, has seen its energy bill increase by more than 44 per cent over the last 12 months. Apparently, to the Turnbull government, these issues are not important, because I can think of absolutely no other reason why the budget completely ignored Townsville and North Queensland.
Townsville will not be ignored. We will not be silent. We will demand action from this government. I have stood in this place time and time again giving strong warnings to the Turnbull government, stating that ignoring Townsville's and North Queensland's water and energy issues would be at its own peril. Now the federal budget has been delivered, and I see absolutely nothing for Townsville's water security and energy issues. The government has just added fuel to the fire.
So, once again, Labor leads where the Turnbull government has failed Townsville and North Queensland. I was proud to stand with Bill Shorten, who committed $200 million to a hydro power station on the Burdekin Falls Dam and $100 million to water security infrastructure. Bill Shorten met with local Townsville leaders to discuss these issues, the impact they are having on the north's economy and their negative social impact on our community. Less than one month later, our region saw true commitment and some real money from Labor.
It is just so clear to me that the coalition do not give a Burdekin Falls Dam! I would have welcomed a Turnbull government announcement if they had matched Labor's commitment. I am doing my job and what is right for our community. So, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and all of the coalition senators for Queensland: if you thought I was angry before, you have not seen anything yet. I will speak louder than before, until your ears hurt and until you actually deliver a hydro power station and water security for Townsville.
Swan Electorate: Volunteer Grants
Mr IRONS (Swan) (10:33): I rise today to update the House on the Volunteer Grants program and the positive impact it has on sporting clubs and not-for-profits in my electorate of Swan. On Tuesday last week, the Minister for Social Services, Christian Porter, visited my office to join with me in presenting more than $45,000 worth of volunteer grants to 13 clubs and organisations across the electorate of Swan. I would like to congratulate the following organisations on their success in this funding round: the Belmont Villa Soccer Club, represented by Keith Chambers and Niamh Chambers; the Cloverdale Comets Diamond Sports Association; Edmund Rice Camps for kids, represented by the CEO, Kevin Knapp; the Furqan Islamic Association of WA, represented by Dahir Cali and Khadar Hirsi; the Guinean Community Association of WA; the LinC Church Services Network, represented by Lester and Betty Morris; the Lions Club of Manning, represented by Anita George and Sandra Haddon; the Ngalla Maya Aboriginal club; the Perth Angels Football Club, which is a female football club; the Redcliffe Junior Football Club; the Rotaract Club of South Perth, represented by Samantha Fewster and Drew Mackay; Santa's Workshop; and the Turkish Australian Culture House, represented by Tuna Dincer. As you can see, we have so many volunteers in Swan who devote their time to our local sporting teams, community groups and not-for-profits. It is our volunteers that are really the heart and soul of our Swan community.
Following our grants presentation, we enjoyed an afternoon tea at my electorate office in Victoria Park. It was also a great opportunity for the volunteers across these organisations to network and share their experiences. It was fantastic to hear them talk about the hard work they do for our community with their passion and their enthusiasm. I would like to share some of that with the House. Anne Latter and Sarndra Feast represented the Redcliffe Junior Football Club, which I have had a long association with. The club provide a quality playing environment for boys and girls, from Auskick through to 16-year-olds, and they are a very active club within the electorate of Swan. The money they have received through the grant is going towards updating their electronic, audio and video equipment.
Delys Barry and Lynn Hoonhaut represented Santa's Workshop, which is based at Sevenoaks Senior College. Santa's Workshop started in 1998, with a mission to provide joy to children of prisoners at Christmas time. Now, Santa's Workshop busily works all year round and has expanded its reach. It now services other organisations that support disadvantaged children across Perth. With the funding from the volunteer grants program, Santa's Workshop is purchasing furniture, appliances and tools, which will help it make and fix even more toys for the children. Another example is the LinC Church Services Network Canning, which help the elderly in getting to doctors' appointments. As you can see, the volunteer grants greatly support the efforts of our volunteers across Australia and in my electorate of Swan.
Macquarie Electorate: Community Events
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (10:36): The International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia, IDAHOT day, is an important one in the Katoomba calendar in my electorate of Macquarie. IDAHOT day is celebrated on 17 May, marking the date in 1990 when the World Health Organization declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. This year, the guest of honour in Katoomba was former High Court judge and international jurist Justice Michael Kirby, accompanied by his partner of 48 years, Johan van Vloten. Under bright blue skies and surrounded by rainbow colours, former Justice Kirby reminded us that, while in Australia we have the ongoing debate around marriage equality, hate crimes against sexual minorities are still a fact of life in many other countries. I want to congratulate the Blue Mountains IDAHOT committee, including Kevin Hardwick, who had the foresight some years ago to send the invitation to Mr Kirby. This event was supported by a number of organisations, including PinkMountains, Thrive, PFLAG, Alphabet Soup Cinema, the Blue Mountains Women's Health and Resource Centre and the Blue Mountains City Council.
The inaugural Deerubbin Choir Festival was held last weekend in South Windsor. You knew you were in for a treat when then seven combined choirs sang Debra Jones's acknowledgement song. I had the pleasure of speaking of my experience of being part of a choir, at the start of an amazing afternoon of music. From the Macquarie Towns Choral Society, founded in 1948, to the Richmond High School quartet, who brought the house down but had sung together for only a few days, the singers brought a range of styles and ages to the stage. In a first, the Swiss Yodlers performed in the Hawkesbury, singing traditional folk songs, plus there was WomanSong, Stay Tuned, the Hawkesbury Song Company and the Chorella Community Choir. Congratulations to the choir organising committee—Anthony Linden-Jones, Helen Muir, Joy Wilson, Julie Langford, Liz Turner, Martha Allen, Sean Duff, Stacy-Jane Etal, Sue Hoare, Sure Rockwell and Suze Pratten—and MC Christine Paine. I look forward to many more Deerubbin Choir Festivals.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): I thank the honourable member—sorry, I thought you had finished.
Ms TEMPLEMAN: I've still got a minute, Deputy Speaker! Greg and Ros Boscato are better known as the Hawkesbury Jaffas, a name derived from their original orange rally car, used to raise funds for the KidzFix Foundation. The foundation is made up of passionate individuals who run on a shoestring and raise money to improve the lives of sick kids. The linchpin is an eight-day car rally in September, this year from Ballina to Dubbo, where I am told dust and dirt are the order of the day for the new 'Maltese Falcon'. On Saturday night, Ros and Greg held their annual trivia night at Richmond Golf Club, and I have to say I think I had a bit of a head start in the photo round, with shots of Paul Keating, Peter Garrett and Tanya Plibersek, not to mention the man my electorate is named for, Lachlan Macquarie. Congratulations to a Hawkesbury couple who are single-handedly making a difference.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My humble apologies for that interruption. You take as long as you need next time!
An honourable member interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, absolutely! I was generous in that space.
Australian War Memorial
National Boer War Memorial
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (10:39): I take this opportunity to give a special thank you to the director of the Australian War Memorial, Dr Brendan Nelson, for giving me the truly great privilege of participating in the cleaning of the tomb of the unknown soldier at the Australian War Memorial on Thursday, 11 May. I heard Dr Nelson's offer recently on Sky News that any MP or senator could participate and his complaint that he had made this offer before—which I had not heard—and that very few of us had taken it up, so I contacted him the next day and made the arrangements.
We all know that the tomb of the unknown soldier contains the body of an unidentified Australian solder killed in World War I that was recovered from the cemetery near Villers-Bretonneux in France and was transported home and interred in the Hall of Memory within the War Memorial at Canberra. He was buried in a Tasmanian blackwood coffin on which were placed a bayonet and a sprig of wattle. Soil from Pozieres battlefield in France was scattered on the tomb.
Cleaning it requires one to get down on one's hands and knees, firstly, to remove all the red poppies that were left the day before and, then, to polish the red marble slab. Then one is required to dust the engraved gold leaf lettering, which says: 'An unknown Australian soldier killed in the war of 1914-1918'. To undertake such as task on a cold Canberra morning inside the Hall of Memory with the rising sun shining through the stained glass panels was a very, very special and moving experience which I will always treasure. I would encourage all my parliamentary colleagues on both sides to take up this offer from Brendan Nelson and have the experience that I had.
At this time, I also want to comment on the opening of the new Boer War Memorial on Anzac Parade, which will take place on Wednesday, 31 May, in a ceremony over which the Governor-General will preside. These sculptures, of which I was able to get a sneak preview the other day, are of four Australian horseman on patrol. These sculptures are by the Melbourne sculptor Louis Laumen and are of the highest quality. We should give the sculptor, Mr Laumen, the most number of stars that he can get for his brilliant work. I encourage everyone to go and have a look at the memorial. I encourage all the constituents from my electorate: next time you visit Canberra, ensure you put the Boer War Memorial on your list of things to see.
BHP Billiton
Mr SWAN (Lilley) (10:42): Last week we received further confirmation of BHP's $1.4 billion tax evasion through its Singapore tax haven—or, to use BHP's Orwellian term, their 'marketing hub'. Vulture fund Elliott Advisors describe BHP's claims of transparency as disingenuous and its marketing hub as unsustainable. Now, when the poachers are outing the gamekeepers, it is really time for BHP to come clean: the Singapore hub is a rort and out-and-out tax evasion. BHP's failure to come clean is evidence of a boardroom culture that is not just selfish but rank with malpractice. Like other multinationals, it has been involved in a deceptive race to evade tax, to suppress wages and to casualise its workforce.
The $165 million allegedly scammed from the tax office by Plutus Payroll is deeply disturbing, but it leaves me asking this question: what is the difference between Plutus and BHP? Plutus stole $165 million of taxpayer's money that was on its way to the ATO. BHP pretends its marketing hub in Singapore adds value to a lump of iron ore. The iron ore is shipped directly on boats to China without even a visit to Singapore where billions of dollars of profits are out of reach of the ATO. In effect, BHP runs the most profitable shipping company in the world; however, it is one which does not provide services to anybody else.
So what is the difference between BHP and Plutus? Is it the quality of the suits of their executives? Is it the cars they drive? Not really. It is the army of accountants and lawyers and the executive board culture that is prepared to do anything to avoid its ethical responsibilities.
The Federal Court decision on Chevron some weeks ago tells us that BHP and many other multinational companies have been acting at the tax evasion end of the spectrum for over a decade and that BHP's aggressive transfer pricing is not a valuation dispute but outright tax evasion. Both organisations—BHP and Plutus—are tax termites. They are tax termites that are eating away at the foundations of the Australian tax system and good government. The effect on the public purse is not of the same scale, but it is still tax evasion. Multinational tax evaders are costing the taxpayer between $4 billion and $6 billion each year. The activities of Plutus are absolutely reprehensible, but they represent a miniscule percentage of the rampant multinational tax evasion that is white-anting our revenue, crippling our capacity to fund health and education and pushing up tax rates for ordinary taxpayers. If BHP want to be known as 'the big Australian' and not 'the dishonest Australian', they need to come clean and get rid of their marketing hub.
Groom Electorate: First Coat
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (10:46): I take this opportunity today to laud the internationally recognised First Coat festival, which was held in Toowoomba over the weekend. Over the last four years, it has drawn together national and international artists to first create and then expand upon the outdoor gallery of public art in the CBD of our city. This has been a key feature of the city's growth in recent years. Toowoomba has seen significant growth during those years—a new airport, the $1.6 billion Toowoomba second range crossing, a new $500 million investment in the retail heart of our city and a new library. The list goes on.
However, the First Coat festival has impacted on our self-consciousness as a city. It has been an awakening of sorts. It has allowed the strong arts community that has always been there to emerge in a very public way. It has encouraged our backstreets and laneways to be explored, not shunned, and has been a catalyst for our evolving coffee, craft, beer and food-scene culture for the benefit of both locals and visitors alike.
This year, the First Coat outdoor gallery was freely accessible for visitors to wander around and watch whilst the artists were at work, although Friday's weather proved to be a bleak and challenging start for many of them. This year, more than 20 international, national and local artists once again contributed to one of Australia's largest public art galleries. In addition to the murals there was the curated art experience, including the creation of an interactive and personalised app, and a free live music event, artist talks, markets, creative workshops and other exhibitions were all held.
As the founder, Grace Dewar, has reflected, the efforts of our artists over the weekend have added 26 new murals to our city's CBD, making for a most attractive and colourful streetscape that would have greeted people turning up for work earlier this morning. Grace and co-director Ian McCallum are planning to take the public art concept statewide with projects planned for the rest of the year in Warwick, Ipswich, the Lockyer Valley, Central Queensland and even Far North Queensland. She said:
We would love to think that Toowoomba has built a reputation of being a creative city and will continue to embrace that long beyond our time with the festival …
I, along with others, was very proud to be in the Toowoomba CBD this past weekend and to see this festival again in our community bringing so much value to our locals and visitors alike.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): It truly is a beautiful city.
Budget
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (10:49): But Ipswich is a lot better than Toowoomba and always has been! They have been great rivals for many, many years.
I speak today in relation to the failed opportunity of this government with respect to the May budget in 2017. The 2017 budget presented a real chance for the Prime Minister to finally acknowledge and act on his failure to take steps in relation to the Medicare rebate freeze. He has not learnt the lesson from the 2016 federal election. He should have lifted the Medicare freeze and given people across Australia, and certainly in Blair, much-needed relief. Instead, he has handed down a convoluted plan that will see indexation lifted at a glacial pace over the next four years, doing little to help those in need of affordable health care in Australia. The unfreezing applies to only seven per cent of crucial Medicare tests. Access to health care is not something that should be phased in slowly. A person's ability to see a doctor should not depend on whether the Prime Minister thinks you have waited long enough in relation to the Medicare freeze. It is your Medicare card, not your credit card, that should count. Yet, that is exactly the message this government sent in the 2016 federal election.
The faults of the government in relation to health care are plain for all to see. The out-of-pocket cost of a GP appointment has risen across the board. In my home state of Queensland it has gone up an unbelievable 11 per cent since December 2014, meaning a $7.70 increase for each patient visit to a GP. At the same time bulk-billing rates in Queensland have continued to fall, as is the case right across Australia. It is hard to argue that that was not the government's intention all along, with co-payments being a feature of every budget since the May 2014 budget until recently.
Adding insult to injury, the government's plan will not apply to 93 per cent of scans, meaning those requiring x-rays, MRIs and ultrasounds will just have to keep on paying more and more. The government does not think that the tests used to detect brain, lung and ovarian cancers deserve to be part of the rebate thaw. That is really cruel beyond belief. Damning new data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reveals that those without private health insurance are now waiting twice as long for surgery as those with private health insurance. In my electorate there are 27,000 families. There are over 15,000 age pensioners, and they are the ones who are doing it tough. I call on the government to lift this freeze and to do it immediately. Get rid of the price signal that puts a barrier in place for those people who need the medical care that they deserve. Medicare should be a priority for every government, not just Labor governments.
Berowra Electorate: Northcott
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (10:52): I visited the Northcott office in Hornsby on 2 May to see their efforts in preparing people with disability for work, especially young people with disability in the electorate. I want to acknowledge Deenie Adams, the area manager of northern Sydney, Kiran Lodhia, the centre based coordinator in Hornsby, and the customers of Northcott Hornsby. Northcott is one of the largest disability not-for-profit organisations in the country. It was established in 1929 by the Rotary Club of Sydney as the New South Wales Society for Crippled Children in response to the global polio epidemic. Northcott has now grown to employ almost 1,000 staff across Australia, providing personalised services to over 13,500 people with a disability, their families and carers each year.
Northcott provides a range of services to people of all ages living with disability, including assisting in forming closer connections with the community, living independently, everyday life skills, vocational skills training and employment services. During my visit to Northcott, customers and staff raised the difficulty in finding employers willing to take them on as the biggest issue they face. Some customers shared stories of not being taken seriously and showing up for multiple job interviews only to have managers absent or unavailable. I think some of these risk-averse employers fear accusations of discrimination or costs associated with hiring a person with disability, or they might be simply embarrassed to ask questions about what is involved. But they should know that the Northcott customers that I met want to work.
Hornsby Northcott is working to address this issue by hosting networking events to introduce Northcott customers to local employers, increasing their employment opportunities by showcasing their individual skills. They are hosting an employer networking evening on Wednesday, 24 May at Asquith Magpies in Waitara. They asked their customers what sort of work they would like to do and then invited 200 employers to participate in the program. Sadly, only four out of 200 employers have agreed to attend the networking event. Four is clearly not enough. I want to commend the four businesses that are showing up: Ecovis Clark Jacobs, Bushlink, CNS Precision Assembly and Wesley Mission. I will be visiting one of these companies—CNS Precision Assembly—in Hornsby in my electorate next month. CNS Precision Assembly currently employs 30 staff, 16 of whom have a disability. Olly Collins from CNS remarked that people with disabilities are some of the hardest working employees that you will find. We need more employers willing to give people with disabilities a chance. Our government, in this budget, committed to fully funding the NDIS, which will directly benefit over 2,000 people living with disabilities in my electorate. Northcott's customers will be able to access services in the Hornsby area, including after-school programs, sport and recreation camps, and transition to retirement. I commend Northcott for the incredible work they do for our community.
Lalor Electorate: Multiculturalism
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (10:55): Last week Shayne Neumann, the member for Blair and shadow minister for immigration, visited my community. I was proud to take Shayne to meet with Wyndham City Council' Mayor, Henry Barlow, its CEO, Kelly Grigsby, and other senior officials to discuss their award-winning social cohesion program. Wyndham has three citizenship ceremonies a month, with 120 new citizens at each forum. Lalor is one of the youngest and most diverse electorates in the country. We are lucky to have a council that sees opportunity in our multiculturalism, a council that sees diversity as an opportunity. Council talked to the member for Blair about what happens when migrants settle in Wyndham but also told a positive story about how people waiting for citizenship and people now settling in Australia make contributions to our local community. I want to thank Wyndham City Council for all the work they do to make immigration successful.
We then visited Wyndham Community & Education Centre, where the member for Blair and I spoke to about 60 English-language students. Wyndham CEC works closely with settlement services to make sure that new migrants get the English language training they need and to generally help them integrate into the community. They are ably led by Jenni Barrera and dedicated people like Cathy Brunton. The shadow minister and I heard from their perspective how immigration and settlement services have taken a turn for the worse under this government. We heard about the hardening of the department and the lack of communication between gatekeepers and settlement services. None of this makes us safer or improves people's settlement experience. Treating people as you would objects coming through customs frustrates integration and makes it harder for communities and individuals.
They also spoke to us about the inflexibility in English language requirements and they made it clear that the current system does not account for a range of people, including those who are preliterate, meaning that they had not learnt to read and write in any language when they arrived in this country.
Finally, we met with representatives from a range of migrant communities in a town hall forum. We heard from Spanish and Portuguese students, some of whom teach at Australian universities but are still required to repeatedly complete the English language test. We heard from South Sudanese Australians who had spent years in refugee camps. We heard from Karenni and Chin refugees, who have effectively always been stateless. They made it clear that the government's settlement model is hurting their communities. Although they spoke positively about the community sponsorship program, they all asked that it be counted on top of our humanitarian intake rather than in place of it. We heard from people who go through the stress and financial burden of saving loved ones from war and conflict. We heard their desire to see our humanitarian and refugee intake increased.
Finally, we heard from community members from the subcontinent—people who feel betrayed by this government's long-stay parent visa arrangements, people who thought they were going to pay a bond and who are now being told it will be a fee, people who are now choosing which set of parents to invite to this country.
South Asian Film, Arts and Literature Festival
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (10:58): I often boast that my electorate is the most multicultural in the country and use opportunities like this to share stories of the wonderfully integrated community which I represent. While these stories often centre on the large Chinese and Korean diasporas, these two groups are just some of the many ethnicities that call Bennelong home.
Last weekend, the inaugural South Asian Film, Arts and Literature Festival was held on the grounds of Macquarie University. This event celebrated the cultures of all South Asian countries—Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Normally, these groups would hold their own events, diluting their effectiveness and community reach. The SAFAL Fest unites all eight motherlands into one dazzling two-day festival. The festival hosted local and international stars to celebrate the region's diverse arts and culture. There was plenty on offer, with film screenings, filmmaking and writing workshops, arts exhibitions, book readings, music and dance performances, a talent quest, a seven-minute short film competition and awards. I had the honour of opening the event with a dedication to the great Bengali Nobel prize-winning poet of 1913, Rabindranath Tagore. He is held in reverence throughout South-East Asia and beyond. We then enjoyed an amazing awards ceremony on Saturday night.
SAFAL Fest was put together by the Australian South Asia Forum. The forum is a not-for-profit, with a view to bringing Australians of South Asian heritage or those with an interest in South Asia onto a single platform that will achieve greater cohesion, assimilation, cultural recognition and economic empowerment. SAFAL Fest chairperson Ashi Gholkar, director of performing arts Kedar Pagaddinnimath and director of literature Rekha Rajvanshi made sure the event was a success, helped by representatives from Macquarie University Richard Howitt, Dr Iqbal Barkat and Deputy Vice-Chancellor Tim Beresford.
I was particularly pleased to note that a large part of the funding for this event was provided by the federal government. We committed to giving $5,000, and I am very pleased to note that this was provided to the SAFAL team in April. I am proud to be part of a government that has made a commitment to our local communities. I look forward to continuing to support all our local groups and celebrations.
While this was put on by the local South Asian communities, it was open to all. It is always pleasing to see local residents rallying around and celebrating the cultures of our neighbours. Our community's strength is in its diversity. This fusion of cultures is what makes our part of Sydney great and what makes me so proud to be its representative.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has now concluded.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Volunteers
Mr HILL (Bruce) (11:01): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) pursuant to a decision of the 2016-17 federal budget, the Department of Social Services is currently undertaking a redesign of the Strengthening Communities grants program, to be known as the Strong and Resilient Communities grants program from 1 January 2018;
(b) the Strengthening Communities grants program currently provides around $18 million per year to projects which address disadvantage and build opportunity in communities around Australia;
(c) under the current grants program, there is a specific funding stream for volunteer management programs, which in 2017 will fund volunteer support services in local communities to a total of around $7.4 million;
(d) the Department of Social Services has proposed that this volunteer management stream of grants funding will be abolished from 1 January 2018, meaning volunteer support services will be forced to compete with other worthwhile community services and removing any guarantee that they will be funded at all;
(e) this is the latest reduction in funding allocated to volunteer management since the decision was made to transfer responsibility for volunteering from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to the Department of Social Services in 2014, a move which volunteering peak bodies and representatives opposed; and
(f) the national peak body for volunteering, Volunteering Australia, states that this move will 'rip the heart out of local volunteer support services', which play an important role in Australian communities by leading volunteers in a wide variety of organisations and services, from the human services and the arts to environmental, animal welfare and sporting groups;
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) approximately 5.8 million Australians, or 31 per cent of the population, volunteer, with Dr Lisel O'Dwyer of Flinders University estimating their annual contribution to Australia as $290 billion;
(b) volunteering plays an important role in delivering the priorities of the Government, with volunteers contributing many thousands of hours per year to the aged care workforce, the disability services, schools and hospitals, art galleries, libraries and sporting clubs—bolstering economic participation, mitigating isolation and loneliness and increasing social inclusion and participation;
(c) while volunteering is defined as 'time willingly given, for the common good and without financial gain', it does not happen free, and requires the investment of resources in volunteer support services in order to maintain a professional, responsive and efficient volunteer workforce; and
(d) the withdrawal of funding to volunteer management services will threaten the viability of the thousands of volunteering organisations and will have a huge impact on the community; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) congratulate community-based volunteer support services for the work that they do to support strong, healthy and resilient Australian communities through an effective and professional volunteer workforce, and
(b) recognise the importance of funding volunteer management services and Volunteering Australia's campaign to retain funding for volunteer management as part of the federal budget.
I do not think I would have to convince any member here—even those opposite, with whom we may often disagree—of the value of volunteering. We can all bring numerous local examples of great works done in our electorates, but, when you look across the nation, together the numbers are truly staggering. At latest count, an estimated 5.8 million Australians volunteer their time—about 31 per cent, a third of the Australian population. The estimated value of that is $290 billion of economic and social good, which is an astounding figure.
In that context I am disappointed, therefore, to read Volunteering Australia's comment on the Liberals' budget, which was to record their great disappointment that 'volunteering has been overlooked in this budget'. Volunteering Australia put forward a range of sensible suggestions in their prebudget submission, but the government failed to take them up.
One in particular I think is important to talk about. That is the removal of the Volunteer Management Program. This provides dedicated funding for regional volunteer coordination and support services. The definition of volunteering, I think, is apt—that is, time willingly given for the common good without financial gain—but it does not come for free. Volunteers need professional coordination and support, and the removal of this dedicated funding available for that coordination and support really fails to understand or value the critical role which these organisations provide for numerous very small community groups. They provide advice, support, regulation, insurance and training, but also, through them, thousands of volunteers actually first connect with the little organisations that they support. They will come in through these portals or regional organisations, get a bit of training and guidance and get matched with a good local cause.
The South East Volunteers, based in my electorate, led by the wonderful Ann Burgess, serve the whole of Melbourne's south-east including the electorates of Chisholm, Hotham, Isaacs and Holt and further afield. They stand to lose $150,000 of funding when the changes come in on 1 January and will be forced to compete against numerous smaller groups. Indeed, the current suggestions from the discussion paper and response are that there will be no ongoing funding, and groups will have to go back to that tired old game of making up 12-month projects to do work which is just fundamental and should be funded separately.
In my view, it is a badly thought-through decision. It is time the government came clean on their plans, and it is not too late to listen and change the approach—it is only a modest change in the scheme of the new program—before the new arrangements kick in on 1 January.
Volunteering does, as I said, have enormous benefits across Australia. Every hour of every day in every community, people are willingly and freely giving up their time, for no compensation, to make a difference, and it touches every section of Australian society: social services and welfare, emergency services, sporting services, arts, culture, the natural environment, heritage, animal welfare and more. I would like to identify four distinct types of value. There is value in the activities themselves, which is really self-evident for any of us in this chamber when we move around our communities, whether through the outcomes or the money saved. There is enormous value for government in delivering programs and policies such as for disability, aged care, environment or, most critically and entrenched even further in this budget, employment services. There is value for individuals—not only the sense of belonging, purpose and meaning that it provides but also through employment pathways, which is a well-recognised pathway into permanent employment. Importantly, there is value for society because it builds social cohesion, social capital and that sense of community belonging.
There are myriad locally in Bruce. I will just mention one in passing because it is on my mind since I went there on Friday. It is wonderful, special place called Cornerstone in Dandenong. Operating for 25 years, it is a not-for-profit Christian organisation which has provided a safe place for those in need to meet to seek comfort, companionship and aid. The people who visit come from challenging backgrounds and are often homeless, suffer from drug addiction, mental illness and social isolation or are people who have just run out of money that fortnight. For 25 years, more than 500,000 meals have been given out and yet, sadly, that building, which has been home, has to be sold. I would like to record my thanks and appreciation for the incredible act of generosity of the Rado family, who have made this building in central Dandenong available, rent free, for 25 years. It really is a generous act. Friday was a celebration of the place—not the building, but the spirit of the volunteers and the visitors, and the companionship and social bonds that have been formed there.
The final thing I note is that, because of the government's confused process and lack of clarity, there is enormous concern about the imminent narrowing of the kinds of groups that may be assisted. There are signs from the discussion paper that funding may only be available for social welfare activities. That would be a major change and would cut out many groups, including sporting, environmental and animal welfare groups. I call on the government to reconsider its approach.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Ms Owens: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (11:07): The member for Bruce has proven himself to be a sensationalist. His motion is full of unproven assertions and pessimistic forecasts about the future of Australian volunteerism. The most bogus claim in this motion is that the restructuring of the Stronger Communities grant program will somehow diminish the volunteer movement in Australia. This is false. The federal government will fund the restructured Strong and Resilient Communities grant program with $18 million—true. The federal government will also continue to fund the Volunteer Grants program with $10 million—true. Volunteer management programs will be able to apply for funding under the new grants structure. Volunteer support services will compete with other organisations, as is fair, for federal funding.
The restructuring of the program will not—and I quote the member for Bruce—'threaten the viability of the thousands of volunteering organisations'. These words betray a fundamental misunderstanding of volunteer work in Australia. In fact, the member for Bruce contradicts himself in the preceding paragraph where he states:
… while volunteering is defined as 'time willingly given, for the common good and without financial gain', it does not happen free, and requires the investment of resources in volunteer support services in order to maintain a professional, responsive and efficient volunteer workforce …
There are a few clangers in that sentence. He concedes that volunteer work is 'time willingly given, for the common good and without financial gain', yet states that 'it does not happen free'. Well, we know that it comes at a cost to the volunteer in time, energy and personal resources. That is the point of volunteer work: serving others in the community. But that is not what he means. He is not talking about the sacrifice of individual Australian volunteers; he is talking about the cost to government. Instead, according to the member for Bruce, volunteer work requires the investment of resources to maintain a professional, responsive and efficient volunteer workforce. He is arguing that volunteer work is only made possible by government money, by a professional volunteer workforce. That is a contradiction if ever I heard one.
But in Victoria, under a Labor government, all things are possible and indeed permissible. Witness the attempt of the Andrews government to dismantle the Country Fire Authority. Government always knows best, doesn't it! This goes to the heart of the matter. The member for Bruce argues that volunteers play an important part in delivering government priorities. He takes a government-centric view of the world—big brother knows best. They prefer to co-opt volunteers to their cause. We should not be surprised that this world view animates those opposite. But don't take my word for it. Listen to the verdict of Labor insiders who have seen the folly of their party's big government instincts. The late Peter Walsh, WA senator and Labor minister, was credited with saying:
Public enterprises have much more to do with stuffing featherbeds for their management and staff than they do with their public interest.
Peter Walsh would find himself out of step with today's Labor Party, who plays government at the centre of Australian life.
We on this side of the House take the opposite view. We have a vision of limited government, where we believe volunteers are best placed to care for the needs of their communities. Our priorities reflect the people we represent. That is why we have the Volunteer Grants program—to empower and support the many volunteer organisations that have grown up in our communities, fiercely independent of government.
In recent weeks I have had the privilege of visiting volunteer organisations in Canning that have been beneficiaries of the Volunteer Grants program. I think of Pat Smythe at the Peel Bowling and Social Club, whose club received money for its work with bowlers with disabilities and Alzheimer's disease. I think of the Riding for the Disabled Association in Orange Grove, which enriched the lives of young people with disabilities, through therapeutic and sporting horse activities. I was there only last Wednesday afternoon. To see the delight on those children's faces was something special. They do not ask for any government support, but we give it to them because we recognise the value they contribute to our community. People like these can see and serve the needs in their local communities in a way that Canberra never can. This government is empowering volunteers to do that very thing.
Ms LAMB (Longman) (11:11): Just a little over a week ago, on the day I returned to the electorate from the last parliamentary sitting, I hosted the very first Annual Volunteer Awards in Longman. It was a fantastic evening, on which the hard work the volunteers of our electorate have done our local community was recognised. It was a great way to celebrate National Volunteer Week. Over 100 people attended to recognise and congratulate our volunteers and the work they do.
A live in and represent a really great electorate, an electorate that proudly supports volunteers, who are the lifeblood of our community. We are a community of really hard working families—we are a small business owners and retirees who want the very best for our families and our community. But with an average median total personal income of only $27,000 a year, or just over $500 a week, many of our constituents live with disadvantage. They struggle to get by and they rely upon services provided by organisations and their volunteers.
While life can be tough, the volunteers of our community groups and organisations know that, in providing support, we have a great opportunity to really create a difference in people's lives. That is why I am opposed to this redesign from the Department of Social Services, which is seeking to take funding from the Strengthening Communities grants program, a program that to date can be seen as nothing but successful. The grants program, which provides around $18 million per year to projects that address disadvantage and build opportunities in communities around Australia, has been a vital source for our nation's volunteer organisations.
Within the program there is a specific funding system, or stream, for volunteer management programs. It is this funding that will be abolished, on 1 January next year, under this government. Effectively, this will mean that volunteer support services will be forced to compete with other worthwhile community services for funding. Further, this redesign removes any guarantee that these crucial volunteer support services will receive any money at all from the grants program. As the Strengthening Communities program is currently the only source of federal money for volunteer management services, this could easily result in the government providing absolutely zero funding to these organisations, from January 2018.
This government must surely concede that it is alarming that the peak body for volunteering, Volunteering Australia, states that the change that they intend to make to Strengthening Communities:
… will rip the heart out of local volunteer support services.
This funding cut is likely to have a devastating effect. How can the government call this redesigned program the Strong and Resilient Communities grants program when the changes will make our communities less strong and less resilient? This is a government who frequently likes to tell us that nothing comes free. Yet here they are making it more difficult for our volunteer organisations to obtain Commonwealth assistance for the work that they do to help our communities.
I know that Labor and those opposite tend to have opposing beliefs a lot of times and across a lot of issues. But I believe there are really core areas where bipartisan support should be expected, and I know my community expects it. Supporting those who already do so much for our community is not just a good decision because there are positive social or economic outcomes; it is because it is just the right thing to do. Today, I call upon the government to recognise the importance of funding volunteer management services and, in turn, the importance of recognising their volunteers, volunteers who contribute approximately $290 billion a year to the economy. Further to that, I call upon the government to retain that funding as part of their federal budget.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (11:16): What an outrageous comment from the member for Longman to suggest that this government does not care about volunteers. Volunteerism is at the central core of this government's beliefs. The federal government does recognise the importance of volunteering. It is central to my vision and to that of the government. It is central to our vision to provide the very essence of our local communities with appropriate funding so that they can get on and do what they do best, and that is to look after our fellow citizens.
In my first year as the federal member for Fisher, the Turnbull government has invested significantly in local communities in my electorate. Let's just have a look at some of those. This month 100,000 volunteers across Australia have benefited from $10 million in Commonwealth government grants. In Fisher alone, more than $30,000 was awarded. Recipients included: the Landsborough State School P&C Association, which received $3,200 for training volunteers; $4,800 for the Caloundra family drug service and support group, also for training; $2,100 for Girl Guides in Maleny for transport costs of volunteers with disability; $5,000 for Maleny District Sports and Recreation Club for landscaping and gardening; $1,600 for the Maleny Neighbourhood Centre for computer and kitchen equipment; $4,182 for the Landsborough Area Community Association for computer equipment and fuel costs; $4,926 for the Maleny and District Men's Shed for first aid equipment and tools; and $6,500 for St Vinnies in Caloundra, Maleny and Landsborough
Last month, the Alex Surf Club, of which I am a proud patrol captain, received $15,000 under the Solar Communities program to install rooftop solar photovoltaic panels, as did the Maleny Golf Club. Speaking of surf lifesaving, in February, five different surf clubs in my electorate received $5,000 each as part of $25,000 they will get over five years from the Commonwealth Beach Safety Equipment Fund—Alexandra Headland, Dicky Beach, Kawana Waters, Metropolitan Caloundra and Mooloolaba.
In December 2016, the Maleny men's shed were awarded $4,954 from the federal government's National Shed Development Program. The money was used to buy equipment to help them to make the Maleny Historical Society a success and develop the Maleny Historical Village.
In August 2016 plans were approved for the not-for-profit Sunshine Coast Community Sporting Hub, to be situated on Lake Kawana. This was supported by $5 million from the federal government. In early 2016, 19 local community groups, including Caloundra Rugby Union Club, Eudlo Public Hall, Mooloolah Valley Community Association and Rosies Youth Mission, shared $70,000 worth of grants. Other community groups in my electorate in the same period received $3,627 in grants to support groups which honour Australia's military history and personnel.
Though community groups in my electorate have chosen not to apply, a great deal of other support has been made available to them in the past years. To name only a small selection: The Community Heritage and Icons Grants program offers up to $10,000 for activities that promote the Glass House Mountains in our region. The Good Sports program offers funding for activities undertaken by local community sports clubs to reduce the impact of illegal drugs on our young people. Community Commemorative Grants, as well as Veteran and Community Grants, have been available to help groups that support our current and former servicemen and women.
This government should, and we do, congratulate all of these volunteers for their service to our community. is not a government that does not value volunteerism. Not only do we value it, we put our money where our mouth is, and we support all volunteers who give up their time so very valuably. Without volunteers this country would obviously cost a heck of a lot more money to run than it does now, and that is quite enough as it is. Imagine where we would be without volunteers. Imagine us being without surf lifesavers, without St John's first aid, without all the P&C groups. Where would we be as a community without them? Volunteers are so vital for our community, and this government supports them, lock, stock and barrel.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (11:21): I have lived a very lucky life, like many people in our community. I have good genes. I had good parents. We were not rich by any means, but I was well raised. I have not had the floor pulled out from underneath through the loss of a loved one or ill health or the many circumstances that can smash into you and break your life apart. Those of us who are members of parliament meet those people in our offices every day.
It occurs to me that there is a great irony in life that at the time when you do not really need to make big changes to your life, because your life is going well, you have all the capacity you need to actually make the change. You have friends, financial security and a belief and ability to control your life, at the very time when you need it least. It is ironic that at times when you really do need to pick yourself off the floor life can have taken that capacity from you, through grief, through extraordinary loss, through illness or just through grinding poverty, when you do not have the capacity or the energy to make your life better.
Volunteers step into that gap, not with their money but with their spare capacity. That is what makes volunteers special. They are people who believe they can change the world and have the capacity in them to do it, who lend that capacity to someone who does not. That is what they do, and that is what makes it valuable. They do something that taxpayers cannot pay for—their community—they lend their spare capacity. They are remarkable people. We all have many of them, and we thank them every day.
I think that the government's policy decision to remove the funding from the volunteer management services shows it does not understand that bringing together the person with the capacity and the person without the capacity is not as easy as it looks. It is easy through organisations that we know well, such—St John Ambulance, perhaps, Salvation Army; the really well known organisations—but what if you are a person who has unique skills: you have accounting skills, an ability in social enterprise, and you are looking for a good match? That is what these volunteer services do; they are actually the matchmaker. They put together the person with the capacity and the person without the capacity in a way that only a professional organisation can do, because the infrastructure in the organising role that these volunteer management services do is about who they know, what they know and their networks within the community. Those kinds of networks, which are the genuine infrastructure which supports volunteer services cannot be done on a volunteer basis, because they require longevity of relationship building, of comprehension, of understanding your community; skill and experience in knowing where those matches are; and, of course, knowing all the laws that governments do impose on volunteers, such as insurance, food handling, health and safety—all the things that a volunteer might need to learn before that person can go in and give their capacity to someone in need. They may need training in working with people with trauma, for example. They may need a greater understanding of working with people with mental illness. There are lots and lots of things that volunteers need.
The providing of that training, the seeing of those gaps and the filling of those gaps is a professional job. That is what it is, it is a professional job. It is currently handled by the Centre for Volunteering. In my community it is handled by Leep incredibly well. There are very few organisations in Parramatta that do not use the services of Leep to augment their volunteer staff and to train them for the work they will do. They are incredibly important organisations. To assume that the entire volunteer sector can just appear out of the ground without that kind of overview, without the skill in knowing the needs of the community and the unmet needs and without there being a matchmaker is a little naive.
I would like to acknowledge the many organisations in my community that work with volunteers: Lifeline, Shakti et cetera. They are incredible organisations that do great work. I do not have time, unfortunately, to talk about them all today, but I would urge the government to rethink this decision. It is a relatively small amount of money for organisations that dramatically increase the volunteer participation in our community. They are incredibly important roles and they cannot be done on a volunteer basis, because they need the continued longevity of their relationships and their knowledge.
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (11:26): Congratulating our volunteer organisations and the support services that help match volunteers to organisations can never be hard work. In Australia, but particularly on the northern beaches of Sydney, which I represent here in parliament, volunteerism is in our blood. In Mackellar I am proud to say people more often than not solve their own problems. They see something in the community they are not happy with, they see someone in need, so they get together and actually make a difference.
Take, for example, and this is but one of many, the Mums for Mums Group. It was started by a couple of friends, mothers whose children all attended Newport Public School. One of their own was diagnosed with brain cancer. A couple in their prime, working and raising healthy and happy kids. It could have been any one of them. Offering sympathy is easy. Who could not be sympathetic to such a plight? Actually helping and making a real difference day in and day out through what can be a long, steep road is the hard part.
Unwilling to stand by and watch, this group of mothers decided to band together and help. Discreetly and respectfully, they started supporting the family with frozen meals that could easily be popped in the oven after a hospital visit. They organised a cleaning service to help unburden an overwhelmed father trying to keep his family together. They helped take care of the kids. They were there providing support every step of the way. Seeing what a difference their help made, they were asked again and again to help families in the community who had fallen on hard times. They grew into a group of energetic parents learning how to raise money, how to organise and how to provide support. Tragically, after having gone into remission, brain cancer claimed their friend's life.
I am honoured to have been joined by my colleague Minister Concetta Fierravanti-Wells and the state Minister for Education, Rob Stokes, to support the Mums for Mums campaign, selling brain cancer beanies just last week. They are raising money not just to continue their own work but also to support the Sydney Neuro-Oncology Group in memory of their friend.
In supporting this campaign, we hope to raise awareness so that everyone can do their bit. Every single one of us can dedicate some of our time to helping someone or something else—whether it be spending a Saturday patrolling our beaches, a Sunday back burning the bush, a Thursday night helping out a the local women's shelter, a morning at the Be Centre for traumatised children, an afternoon at the Sargood centre or whether it be joining groups like the Mums for Mums or the Surfing Mums of Newport.
I am proud to be part of a government that recognises the enormous contribution volunteers make to each of our communities, which is why we are improving the delivery of community development funding through the redesigned Strong and Resilient Communities activity, now more closely aligned to the Commonwealth's constitutional authority. We are truly committed to supporting community based organisations that are tackling complex social problems on the ground day in and day out. SARC will help support community organisations wanting to increase people's sense of belonging and engagement within their own local communities, helping to foster cohesion. It will improve their chances of getting people who are often in desperate circumstances the help they need and their lives back on track.
We have maintained our support for these community organisations with $18 million in government funding every year. Under the new grant system, support service organisations will continue to be eligible to apply for funding to support the management and referral of volunteers for projects that meet SARC's objectives. In fact, we have increased the amount volunteer support service organisations can apply for to $150,000 per year per project. It is our hope that SARC will help fund innovative, community led solutions to social and economic challenges, because there are often no better placed people to help their community than their own—locals who know the people, who know the systems, who know the pitfalls and who are invested in seeing their own thrive and can put their heart and soul into their projects, knowing that this government supports them.
The funding application is competitive because, as much as we would like to give endless amounts of money to every organisation wanting to do good, the government is not an ATM. The supply of taxpayer money is not endless and, just like in the real world, tough decisions must be made. Including a competitive process in the allocation of grants ensures the money contributed by hardworking Australians is put to the best use that it can be, will have the maximum impact and will help the most people in the best way. As Margaret Mead said:
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made in order of the day for the next sitting.
Energy
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa) (11:31): I move:
That this House:
(1) congratulates the Australian Government for its sensible and pragmatic approach to ensuring energy security and affordability in Australia;
(2) acknowledges that balancing our energy supply through the use of clean-fired coal, renewable energy sources and liquefied gas will be key to the Australian Government's approach;
(3) notes that:
(a) Queensland is home to a number of coal-fired stations and is advancing a number of renewable energy projects, placing it in a prime position to become an energy hub; and
(b) the coal industry directly employs over 44,000 people and pays over $5.7 billion in wages and salaries; and
(4) condemns the Federal Opposition and Queensland Government for their reckless and unrealistic renewable energy targets of 50 per cent, which only serve to threaten energy security and jobs, as well as drastically escalate the cost of electricity for individuals, businesses and industry as a whole.
I am proud to be part of a government that is approaching energy policy in such a sensible and pragmatic way, because getting this mix right is so important. It is so important to business, households and the jobs that employ Australians, particularly in the coal sector. Forty-four thousand Australians are employed in the coal sector in Australia today, which is $5.7 billion worth of wages.
Getting that balance right for households is important. I sat in the community of Warwick in only the last couple of weeks and talked to pensioners about the rising cost of electricity, about how that was impacting on the decisions they make as we go into winter about how much they will use heating in their own houses. It will also affect small businesses. I was out in Eulo, a little community west of Cunnamulla, in September last year. They are now making the decision not to open their general store in summer because of the rising cost of electricity. In Meandarra, another little community just south of Chinchilla, the local cafe owner is in the same predicament because of the rising cost of electricity. Getting a sensible and pragmatic policy setting in place that will ensure that we responsibly move on meeting our international targets with respect to renewable energy is imperative.
It has to be a sensible one. We have seen what has happened in South Australia. In fact, Business SA came out only last week in an inquiry on the policies that have been put in place in South Australia that have contributed to the increase in unemployment to 7.3 per cent and the $450 million that was lost in the South Australian economy during that blackout because of the ideology of the South Australian government in not understanding the pragmatic impacts that not getting those settings right will have on each and every one of us within our communities.
I am fortunate enough to live in an electorate that is an energy hub. We have three coal-fired power stations in my electorate at Tarong, at Millmerran and at Kogan Creek. To put it in perspective, in Queensland alone 70 per cent of our energy supply comes from coal, 18 per cent comes from gas and only 4.4 per cent comes from renewable energy. So, if we go down the path the Palaszczuk Labor government wants to in Queensland to a 50 per cent Renewable Energy Target by 2030, we will need to see a 45 per cent increase in renewable energy output by 2030. That is not a responsible way to treat energy and electricity prices for the consumers across Queensland—or the nation, as we are seeing other state governments come in.
To put it into perspective: if you look at wind energy, it is around $140 a megawatt hour. Solar is about $100, gas is $80, and coal is $40. So we have that seismic shift in the generation of our energy sources. You are going to put considerable strain on local economies, on small businesses, pensioners and households that are struggling to keep themselves to keep themselves alive in a competitive world. We are putting too much pressure on small businesses, particularly those in regional and rural Australia that are the heart and soul of my communities that employ nearly everybody. I do not have big corporates in my electorate; I am fortunate that I have small businesses that are passionate about their communities and what they are doing.
Making sure that we have a sensible and pragmatic approach to get this setting right is imperative. It is also beholden to on our state governments, and particularly the Palaszczuk Labor government, to ensure that the cost of generation is one piece of the puzzle of electricity costs. We cannot let state governments off the hook on this, particularly in Queensland, where government-owned corporations are controlling the distribution of electricity across the state. The dividends they are taking out of these companies at the expense of each and every one of us are something every state government needs to understand and needs to start to wean themselves off. Effectively it is a tax by stealth on each of us by these state governments which have become beholden on those dividends to keep them afloat. They need to structurally adjust the way in which they do that because it is not the everyday Australians who should be bearing the tax of a state government or the distribution arm of this policy.
Getting this setting right is so imperative for the future of this nation and for the states. I am proud to say that in my electorate we do have renewable energy—wind, solar, gas and geothermal. We are in an energy hub, but we need to progress that in a pragmatic and sensible way which will take this nation forward and which will pull the economic levers to give wealth to each and every one of us.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (11:36): I second the motion.
Mr SWAN (Lilley) (11:36): When I saw this motion, I did not know whether to laugh or to cry. Catastrophic energy policy from this government has seen electricity prices double on their watch. Their dismantling of the carbon price in the scheme put in place by Labor has strangled investment in the energy industry and resulted in a spike in prices which consumers will have to live with for many years to come. It is very clear where the blame for this lies—at those ideologues who run this government and who do not respect market signals. They can be in climate-change denial at the same time as they see prices double as a consequence of removing a rational market in energy.
So energy prices have doubled. What this motion really says is: 'We have a government which is applauding its own incompetence.' It is just simply breathtaking that they could ignore it. The member for Maranoa talked about pensioners in Warwick, a town I know well. I bet he did not tell them that electricity prices were doubling as a consequence of the ideological decisions taken by those opposite. Every step they have taken in four years has not been about ensuring energy security or affordability; it has been the opposite—energy insecurity and unaffordability.
The pricing scheme put in place by the last Labor government was going to drive the investment we needed to keep prices down. The absence of that investment is what has doubled prices. Of course, our scheme put in place way back then was no different to the scheme that had been originally proposed by John Howard and then supported by the current Prime Minister right through to December 2009—until the coalition was taken over by Tea Party extremists with the backing of the Murdoch press and powerful and vested interests in the energy industry who sought to undermine sound policy. Now, of course, the same people who did that—the Business Council of Australia and all their mates—are back imploring this government to put some form of an emissions trading scheme back in. Do not laugh. The Business Council of Australia—the people who run parts of this government—are now asking them to restore a scheme which they destroyed. The irony of businesses now calling for some form of energy intensity scheme, not unlike what Labor had put in place, is absolutely extraordinary.
The campaign of lies that they built to destroy that scheme has come back to bite them on the bum, and what has come out of that is a doubling of electricity prices. So we have had a lost decade that we could not afford on climate and energy policy in this country, and we should never forget the charlatans and opportunists who did that and produced this spike in electricity prices that is hitting the living standards of low-income people right across our country. The responsibility lies with those opposite and nobody else.
A recent report from Melbourne's climate and energy college found that prices have doubled—I repeat 'doubled'. The cost of energy has increased from roughly $65 per megawatt hour under the Labor government's carbon-trading scheme to $134 a megawatt hour today. This is absolutely stunning. Of course, Queensland has been one of the states worst hit by this price hike, so it is laughable that the member for Maranoa comes in here to highlight the Liberals' incompetence in his home state and in his own electorate, because, by eliminating the carbon-trading scheme, the coalition removed the price signals that were needed to drive the necessary investment in gas and in renewable energy to secure our economic and environmental future.
Prior to the abolition of the carbon price we had a huge spike of investment in renewable energy. Now, as I said before, organisations as diverse as the Business Council of Australia are coming back and complaining about a lack of stability and clarity in government policy. They should be ashamed to even appear in public to argue for a carbon price after all of the heat that they constructed. They conspired with the Liberals opposite to get rid of the price on carbon in the first place. They should be ashamed of their actions and so should those opposite. (Time expired)
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Deputy Nationals Whip) (11:42): Central Queensland has the ability to produce the power we need, but where is the will from Labor? Here are the facts. Queensland and the people of Capricornia need secure jobs. The price of electricity is hurting families and it is hurting business. Central Queensland has the capacity to produce high-energy, low-emission coal-fired power and liquid natural gas and is leading the way in renewable energy production. It is a simple equation with an obvious solution, but both the federal opposition and the Queensland state Labor government do not seem willing or able to do the maths.
The Queensland Labor government is denying Capricornia vital jobs and business competitiveness by labelling a clean coal-fired power station as not rational. As Australian businesses and families endure rising electricity costs and shortages, the Palaszczuk government is again blocking the solution that would also provide much-needed jobs for Central Queensland.
Business is doing it tough. Without investment in vital infrastructure to drive down the cost of doing business, Australian companies simply cannot remain competitive. If they cannot be competitive, they cannot afford to grow and hire more people. It is that simple. Local businesses are already struggling with rising prices and will turn to less environmentally-friendly options, like diesel, if more economically sustainable options are not provided.
I do not think the city Greens comprehend the repercussions to both industry and the environment if business cannot afford to operate. Labor is literally fuelling the fire by continuing to side with the Greens. It is irresponsible for the economy, it does nothing for the environment and it is creating a business environment that is unsustainable. But at least they can sleep in their air-conditioned comfort with their distorted belief that they are somehow helping. It is easy to talk about six per cent carbon emission variations whilst sitting in the comfort of a luxury air-conditioned apartment in a well-lit suburban street with access to all the electric-powered mod cons. It is not so easy to do the same when you live in regional Queensland, where jobs are few and far between, public transport is virtually nonexistent and the costs of doing business are on the rise. We know that renewables will be the way of the future, but we are not there yet.
As I have said before, the investors in clean coal today will be the investors in renewables in the future. Until we are there, we need to ensure we are delivering affordable power to Australians. Adani itself owns the second-biggest solar farm in the world in Tamil Nadu. They are hoping to invest in similar projects in Queensland. Whitsunday Solar Farm and Hamilton Solar Farm are both expected to be operational by the start of 2018, adding a combined 165 megawatts of renewable energy to the national electricity grid. That is enough to power an estimated 87,000 homes. The projects will lead to 300 jobs during construction. This is a great start, but, as business like Dobinsons Springs in Rockhampton have raised with me, the current cost of storage makes solar unaffordable for operations requiring power 24/7. When operations ramp up, such companies need reliable power, and solar is not able to provide this, especially when it has been cloudy for a few days. It would cost the company millions of dollars to purchase adequate storage.
In April, the coalition government released a framework for a new Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism to ensure a secure and adequate supply of gas. The ADGSM is a critical part of the Turnbull government's gas market security plan, aimed at making sure adequate and reasonably priced gas is delivered to Australian homes and businesses. It is time Labor stopped the hypocrisy and got behind such responsible measures.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (11:47): When I first read this motion I seriously thought it was a joke. I thought it was a topic of conversation for the next open mic night at the Canberra comedy club—the hide of those opposite! The member for Maranoa moved a motion that 'congratulates the Australian government for its sensible and pragmatic approach to ensuring energy security and affordability in Australia'—are you kidding me? This is the government that has presided over the most horrendous increase in electricity prices in this country that is affecting households and businesses to the nth degree. Yet here they are, congratulating themselves for sending electricity prices through the roof. It says everything about just how out of touch this Turnbull government is.
We all know that electricity and gas prices are increasing dramatically in Australia, and Australian consumers are worse off because of the policies of this Turnbull government. In TheAustralian Financial Review on 6 March, it was reported that hardware manufacturer Alchin Long Group, based in Western Sydney, faced a doubling of their electricity price contract with Origin Energy. It had gone from $53.30 per megawatt hour to $109.70 per megawatt hour. That is the reality for businesses in Australia and for small businesses trying to make ends meet and trying to compete with international imports. That is the reality. That is what the government's policies have done to small businesses in Australia when it comes to energy costs.
Now let's look at households. An ANU study by Ben Phillips in February of this year, based on the Australian Bureau of Statistics Household Expenditure Survey, showed that over the last 10 years, despite falls in electricity use by households, electricity prices increased by 108 per cent. Guess what the worst state for those increases was? It was none other than Queensland, the state which the member who moved this motion comes from.
This government knows electricity prices are a big issue. They know it because they put in place an energy supplement for pensioners when they negotiated their corporate tax reduction in Australia. So they realise that energy prices are a big issue and are affecting households. Why is it that prices have increased so much in recent years? There is a simple reason for it, and that is that this government has no plan to transition our economy from dirty coal-fired power to cleaner renewable energy in the future, and, over time, reduce costs for consumers. They have this ideological addiction to coal that they cannot drag themselves away from. It is costing households and businesses and holding back our nation's economic development. By removing a price on carbon emissions, by reducing the Renewable Energy Target, and by attempting to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and ARENA, they have created investment uncertainty within the private sector in Australia. And guess what! Because of that approach, because of their policies, the private sector is not investing in new base-load energy development in Australia.
It is up to the private sector to bring on new investment, and the reason for that is that the Liberals privatised all the systems in South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales. They said, 'No, we'll just get rid of it. We will sell it off. It will be right. It won't affect prices at all.' And guess what! The companies in the private sector that bought those investments are not investing in new technology, because of the uncertainty, so prices have gone through the roof. Prices have gone through the roof because we are not getting this new investment coming on. They are saying, 'Let's invest in more coal-fired power stations.' How nuts can you get? How crazy can you get, to suggest that someone in the private sector would want to invest in a coal-fired power station? It is like saying, 'Let's invest in steam trains. I've got a good idea: let's get a new transport policy and we'll invest in steam trains. That is the way to go—that is talking about the future.' That is what those opposite are coming in here and advocating—that the private sector invest in coal-fired electricity. They are absolutely nuts. What we need to be doing is putting in place policies that transition to clean energy, so that there is a reason for the private sector to invest in clean energy, to grow our economy and to invest in new jobs.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (11:52): What we have just heard absolutely defies logic. While Japan, Indonesia, China and even European nations are building hundreds of state-of-the-art coal-fired power stations, we have the opposition sitting here saying that it is yesterday's technology. What a joke. When mankind harnessed the energy of fire it revolutionised the way humans live their lives. We did not shift to that technology—fire—because there was a tax on the cold or because of a ban on raw meat. Successive technologies have driven economies since before the word 'economy' was even invented. Each wave of technology introduced greater efficiencies, more prosperity, more leisure time, and, unfortunately, more time to indulge in non-productive ideologically driven pursuits such as environmental activism.
Yet, here we are in the 21st century, being told by inner-city greenies that North Queenslanders should be prevented from having such a modern economy—prevented from having jobs. The link between affordable energy and jobs is undeniable. South Australia's peak business group, Business SA, is confirmed that power prices and blackouts were having an effect on business insurance expenses and, as Business SA executive Anthony Penney told a parliamentary inquiry on Friday, they were 'unfortunately having an impact on employment as well'.
There was a report in The Weekend Australian saying that industry lost $450 million in the wake of the statewide blackout in September, when a storm downed transmission lines that caused a trip in wind farm power generation and overloaded the Victorian connector. Mr Penney told the parliamentary inquiry:
If you look at today's future energy prices, we're still almost 30 per cent higher than the eastern states. Businesses constantly tell us it's affordability that's the No 1 issue followed by reliability. Businesses are looking to how to better manage their staffing levels due to overall costs.
No doubt impressed with the damage inflicted on South Australia's economy by a reckless pursuit of renewable non-base-load energy, and the dumping of coal-fired power, the Queensland Labor government wants to follow suit, setting a 50 per cent renewable energy target.
Affordable energy is essential to maintaining, much less growing, any economy. This fact was recognised in a North and Northwest Queenslandsustainable resource feasibility studies report, commissioned, I might say, by the Gillard Labor government. That report was on base load power in North Queensland and the Dalrymple agricultural scheme. The key finding in that report commissioned by Labor was that a major coal-fired power station would put strong downward pressure on electricity prices, with a potential $836 million social cost-benefit gain. The report found that such a coal-fired power station would be commercially viable if it were built at the mouth of a coalmine in the Galilee Basin—the same Galilee Basin that people like the previous speaker secretly oppose, even though their leader says something different.
In March 2014, the Australian Energy Market Operator reported that there would be a breach of the reliability standard in Queensland by 2020-21—there would not be enough generation capacity to actually meet demand. Building extra capacity in the system is an imperative, and if we are to learn anything from South Australia it is that the extra capacity cannot come at the expense of reliability and affordability. Coal is reliable and it is affordable. New clean coal technology means that an ultrasupercritical generator can use a pulverised coal combustion system, operating at higher temperature and pressure, to generate reliable supply with up to 50 per cent fewer emissions than conventional coal-fired generators.
Using the new technology to meet increasing demand and to replace older high-emission technology would seem like an obvious choice for anyone that wants to reduce overall emissions, but the hopes and dreams that the ideologues discuss over their double-decaf soy lattes is not a reduction of emissions. The real goal for them, their endgame, is an end to fossil fuels, an end to big business and an end to capitalism and democracy. These things they hate most—business, capitalism and the efficient use of resources—have underpinned the great economies of the world, all the economies where lifestyle, human achievement and development have excelled.
In North Queensland, we are blessed with resources—one of the resources being coal, in both the Bowen Basin and the Galilee Basin. The industry employs 44,000 people and it pays more than $5.7 billion in wages. Even greater benefit is gained through indirect employment and taxes and royalties paid to state and federal governments. Despite the fact that we are blessed with such resources, we do not use the coal ourselves where we could get cheaper energy and more jobs as an outcome.
Mr FEENEY (Batman) (11:57): Since the Abbott-Turnbull government abolished the carbon price, there has been a national policy vacuum created by their inaction. As a result of that negligence, wholesale electricity prices across Australia have doubled. In fact, the only ones congratulating the Turnbull government on their energy policy are the Turnbull government. The recent budget saw this government proudly announce a number of policies that they have lauded as an energy security package. However, like the rest of the measures in this year's budget, this so-called package is an admission of failure, a signed confession, without actually fixing the problem. As Tony Wood, the Director of the Energy Program of the Grattan Institute has said:
The budget does little more on energy than endorse the government's deal with Senator Nick Xenophon on corporate tax cuts …
Tinkering with investment in gas pipelines without addressing the issue of domestic market exposure to price rises from the international market is just not enough. Labor has been warning for years about the problems in our gas market. The gas market in this country is broken. I urge the government to adopt a permanent national interest test for the gas market so that Australian businesses and households are at the front of the queue. If the Turnbull government were really serious about energy security in this country, they would also swallow their partisan pride and join Labor in supporting and adopting an emissions intensity scheme, an idea that we know many in the coalition would support but is banned because of the activities of the hard Right inside the Liberal's parliamentary party. This act would put downward pressure on power prices and send the signal that investors are crying out for to renew our ageing electricity infrastructure. Emissions intensity schemes are supported by a vast majority of industry and experts from across the political spectrum, including the Climate Change Authority, BHP and the New South Wales Young Nationals.
While the Turnbull government is proposing, but not guaranteeing, $110 million for a solar project in Port Augusta, they are threatening to throw $1 billion at the Adani Carmichael mine in Queensland. This is a true indication of this government's priorities. If this government were indeed serious about jobs then they could have supported the Australian car industry for half the price and produced 40 times more jobs than the Galilee Basin is projected to do, even on the most generous of assessments. This is not really about jobs. This is nothing more than a national party boondoggle, and it is doing nothing for our industry or our environment. The big four banks have now ruled out funding, or withdrawn funding from, the Queensland coal project, and that speaks to the fact that this project struggles to stack up financially.
There continue to be very deep environmental concerns. Only today the government has had to quietly axe a number of environmental conditions protecting vulnerable turtle species just to keep this project on track. This is despite the minister promising some of the strictest environmental conditions in Australian history—nothing more than rhetoric, and rhetoric that has not been lived up to with deeds from this government. It is easy to meet environmental standards when you just scrap the inconvenient ones, but that does not make it right. It casts yet another shadow over this Adani project and this government's energy security policy.
Protecting and creating jobs is important. It is crucial for our communities and crucial for our country. That is why Labor wants to see an orderly transition from fossil fuels accompanied by support for workers, rather than having to react to the decisions of multinationals made on the other side of the world, as we saw at Hazelwood. It is also why I am shocked that those opposite can talk about jobs and growth while at the same time facilitating the loss of over 3,000 jobs in the renewable sector. They are setting this country up to be a technology taker, not a technology maker. In the future, when renewable energy has come to dominate energy markets around the world, this coalition would have us still relying on an energy sector that is running out of lifespan.
There is nothing sensible or pragmatic about the Turnbull government's energy policy because they do not have an energy policy. 'Pragmatic' must mean more than just a lack of progress. It must mean acknowledging realities, building this country's future, and making the big decisions that need to be made to secure our renewable energy industries and the jobs and growth that will flow from that investment.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (12:02): Today, from the Labor member's contribution to this debate, I think I have heard everything. Their proposition that they put forward is that if we put a tax on the lowest cost electricity generators, it will somehow make the problem better. With such illogical, irrational, zealotry thinking, I fear for the future of my country.
We have had in this nation a doubling of electricity prices over the last 10 years. But what the members of the Labor Party fail to mention is that almost all of that increase came under their watch. It was the coalition that removed the carbon tax and was able to stabilise electricity prices in this nation. But that has caught up with us. The renewable energy target, having been set by the Labor Party at 20 per cent, has caught up with us, because we have very large increases in electricity prices coming through. Delta Energy has said that the electricity prices coming through this year are $1 billion for South Australia, $2.8 billion for Victoria, $4 billion for New South Wales, and $2 billion for Queensland. Why is that happening? They state these increases are a direct consequence of the closure of the baseload coal-fired power stations. They go on to say that by governments mandating and subsiding renewables, by law, and by the media and the education sector creating a renewables obsession as a populist cause, no rational business would ever invest in baseload coal generation. The mess created by the renewable energy target, and dictated by Labor and the Greens, is the reason we are facing this catastrophic increase in electricity prices in Australia.
We had the member for Kingsford Smith in here talking about coal-fired power plants being something of the past. I have got some news for the member for Kingsford Smith: he may care to look at a paper recently released by no less than Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, two of the most anti-coal organisations on the planet. They list that, in all active developments around the world, there is 842,000 megawatts of coal-fired electricity generating capacity under active construction. That is the equivalent of over 500 Hazelwood power stations. So, where we have closed down one Hazelwood power station, around the world there are more than 500 under active development—and the member for Kingsford Smith comes in here and says, 'Coal-fired power is a thing of the past.' Such stupidity puts the future prosperity of our nation at risk.
If you want to see the future of your 50 per cent renewable energy target, just look at the unmitigated disaster that is occurring in South Australia. It is the highest renewable energy target for electricity in the nation and—surprise, surprise!—South Australia also has the highest unemployment. Last month's unemployment figures have come out. Everywhere around the nation was either stable or saw unemployment fall except for the unmitigated disaster in South Australia. And what are the South Australians having to do? They are spending another $500 million of money they do not have to install diesel generators and a few batteries that will be completely useless. When they buy those batteries, I hope they get a free set of steak knives! Energy is the most important thing that we have in our nation for our competitive advantage.
There was a paper published back in 2004, and I will quote from it. It says:
Australia enjoys some of the lowest stationary energy prices in the developed world. These prices have been an important factor in Australia's national prosperity, underpinning energy-intensive industry and providing cheap reliable energy to businesses and households.
We have surrendered that. We have surrendered our national competitive advantage. This has flowed through to higher cost to consumers, higher cost to businesses and fewer jobs, and the Renewable Energy Target is to blame. I call on members on the Labor Party side to think about the nation. Put the nation first before your ideological obsession. (Time expired)
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (12:07): This motion is ostensibly about energy security. But, in reality, it is about a government that is stuck in the past with its head in the sand. The policies of this government, in destroying emissions reduction laws and policies, together with complete inaction in delivering any positive policies in this area itself, have led us to the energy security crisis that we are currently facing in the eastern states of Australia.
Let's be clear, this problem does not exist in Western Australia, where the forward-thinking Labor state government introduced a gas reservation policy a decade ago, securing gas supply and, therefore, electricity supply in Western Australia. It is amazing what a difference having clear policies and a plan can make. It is a pity we do not have any such thing from this government. The lack of clarity from this government on renewable energy targets has led to a chronic underinvestment in energy generation due to uncertainty.
It is an interesting fact that, when it comes to the oil and gas companies of the world, they all include a market price on carbon in their projections and forecasts, because they know that which the government denies: something has to give. When it comes to energy security, this government is all puff and cluck—as was very well exemplified by the previous speaker.
Mr Turnbull conducted round tables with gas producers with no binding outcomes. Then he announced changes guaranteeing domestic gas supplies in emergency situations. That is a good start, but it does nothing to provide the security and certainty that many businesses around Australia require so they know how much gas they can get and at what price they can get it in order to plan and run their businesses—and we are talking about some of Australia's major employment hubs being under threat here.
This motion seeks to congratulate the Turnbull government:
… for its sensible and pragmatic approach to ensuring energy security and affordability in Australia;
You have to congratulate the member for Maranoa for moving such a motion without even a sense of irony. Alas, the joke is being played out on the Australian people. Energy security not only at peak emergency times but also long term at a sustainable cost is vitally important to the ongoing operation of many businesses—like the Portland aluminium smelter in Victoria. I think everyone in this parliament knows that; you should know that. And thousands of jobs depend on it.
To bring this back home a bit, I will talk about the great workers at the Huntly and Willowdale bauxite mines, and at the Pinjarra, Wagerup and Kwinana alumina refineries. These are thousands more workers who are not talked about enough. Many of them come from my electorate of Burt, as well as from the seats they are situated in—Canning and Brand. In order to have an aluminium smelter you need alumina, and that comes from the refineries in Pinjarra, Wagerup and Kwinana. If there is no smelter, there is no need for the alumina refineries. It is the case that some of these refineries may be able to stay working, in order to export alumina overseas, but why put any of these jobs at risk? That brings us to the mine sites, which would be affected if there was a reduction in throughput at the refineries. You can export bauxite, but, again, why would we put any of these jobs at risk? So, despite all the efforts in securing energy in Western Australia to support the bauxite and alumina operations that we have, the ineptitude of this federal government is putting WA jobs at risk by not being able to secure energy supplies in eastern Australia.
This is but an example of the issues that are writ large across the nation. Where do these issues come from? Despite an abundance of gas around the east coast of Australia, as well as on land, we have a situation where there is no energy security in the Australian energy market. The causes are multiple and complex, but one point is abundantly clear: the lack of action by this government over the four years. It is like they woke up in 2017 and suddenly realised there is a crisis. Now we have this Hollowmen type motion: 'Clean coal, aren't we working on that? Yeah, but not with a straight face; it's a fantastic distraction for us.' What a farce this government has become—a parody of a parody.
Debate interrupted.
Infrastructure
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (12:11): I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that:
(a) Australia's cities require investment and leadership from the Government to deal with a number of pressing challenges, especially urban congestion;
(b) Infrastructure Australia has estimated that urban congestion will cost $53 billion in lost productivity by 2031 if left unaddressed; and
(c) public transport is essential for the realisation of the vision of 30 minute cities;
(2) notes that a number of factors contribute to the worsening of urban congestion, including:
(a) Australia's transition to a knowledge intensive economy, which means employment opportunities continue to cluster in the CBDs of our cities;
(b) high house prices that have seen key workers, single person households and families on very low and middle incomes struggle to find homes close to work, resulting in drive-in drive-out suburbs in nearly all capital cities; and
(c) the rapid growth of Australia's cities, which will see the four largest capitals—Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth—increase their population by 46 per cent and Adelaide, Canberra, Hobart and Darwin increase their population by nearly 30 per cent by 2031; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) use evidence-based policy to support investment in the infrastructure that is required to reduce urban congestion in Australia's cities; and
(b) use the upcoming budget to provide investment for public transport projects listed by Infrastructure Australia as priorities, some of which have suffered funding cuts under the Coalition Government, including the Metro Trains Melbourne, the Cross River Rail, Western Sydney Rail, the Gawler rail line upgrade, and the AdeLINK tram network.
Our nation's cities are at a crossroad. Poised for rapid population growth in coming decades, our four largest capitals—Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth—will increase their population by 46 per cent. Adelaide, Canberra, Hobart and Darwin will increase their population by nearly 30 per cent by 2031.
We know that Australia's transition to a knowledge intensive economy has seen jobs be based in the CBDs of our cities. That has meant that it is harder for key workers, single-person households and families on low and middle incomes to find homes close to work, resulting in drive-in, drive-out suburbs in nearly all capital cities. Infrastructure Australia has told us that urban congestion will cost $53 billion in lost productivity by 2031, if left unaddressed.
We need leadership from the government to deal with these pressing challenges, to improve public transport and to make sure that jobs are created close to where people live. But this is a government that is not matching its rhetoric with reality. It says it understands the importance of infrastructure investment, yet the budget cuts it by $1.6 billion in this financial year alone, with investment to fall off a cliff over the next four years, from a projected $9.2 billion this year, in the government's own projections, down to $4.2 billion in 2020-21.
It is the same with public transport. Malcolm Turnbull loves taking selfies on trains, trams and buses; he just will not fund them with any new investment. The fact is that this year's budget does not have a single dollar of new investment for urban public transport. There is no investment in the Cross River Rail project in Brisbane, Adelaide's AdeLINK, Western Sydney Rail or the Melbourne Metro. Indeed, despite making up 25 per cent of the nation's population, Victoria will receive no new money from the Commonwealth over the forwards for its infrastructure investment program. The budget papers themselves show zero, zero, zero, zero, zero for the years 2016-17 to 2020-21 for infrastructure investment for Victoria. This government has contempt for Victorians, exemplified by its approach to Victorian infrastructure.
In addition, there has been a big deal made about the so-called City Deals program, but there isn't a single dollar in the 2017 budget to make this a reality. The city deals so far are deals in Townsville and Launceston, which are simply an attempt to dress up belated matching of ALP commitments to the Townsville stadium and the University of Tasmania. In Western Sydney, the government is trying to retrofit an election announcement with substance that does not exist and no clear funding to actually get there. The City of Blacktown has actually been excluded from the City Deals process even though they will grow by 200,000 additional people from 2011 to 2036.
City Deals, when done right, provide an opportunity, in particular, for local government to work together with other levels and encourage the economic growth of a region. This government is not doing that. They have established this absurd infrastructure financing unit in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. This is a solution looking for a problem. There is no lack of financing from the private sector or from superannuation funds for good infrastructure projects. There certainly is no lack of innovative financing, which is how projects like the Gold Coast light rail project was funded with support from Infrastructure Australia. This sidelines Infrastructure Australia from the process and completely creates this bureaucracy whereby the private sector are wondering what it will do. Infrastructure Partnerships Australia said:
…the Budget confirms the cut to 'real' budgeted capital funding to its lowest level in more than a decade—using a mix of underspend, re-profiling and narrative to cover this substantial drop in real capital expenditure.
The fact is that this government has abandoned cities at a time when they require leadership and investment from the Commonwealth to ensure their ongoing productivity, sustainability and liveability. This budget means it is a lost opportunity, because the coalition government simply are not up to the task of providing leadership for this century.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): The member for Grayndler has moved the motion in his name. Is there a seconder?
Mr Josh Wilson: I second the motion.
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (12:17): Here we have the member for Grayndler's great optical illusion—'Albo's' evidence based mirage. I think we all know that the Labor Party, and particularly the member for Grayndler, in his former roles under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era, are hypocritical when it comes to infrastructure. They are all talk; no action. The entire thing is a facade.
We heard in the recent budget a $75 billion commitment from the coalition government towards infrastructure over the next 10 years. That is for road, rail and air. If the member for Grayndler is right, then the facts would bear it out. However, I have compared the annual spend under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era on transport infrastructure, and the average annual spend was just over $6 billion. In a comparable time frame, the coalition since 2013 spent over $8 billion. So, $6 billion, Labor, and $8 billion, coalition, and the member for Grayndler actually suggests that the coalition is spending less. Straight mathematics tells you the complete opposite. The coalition now has a $75 billion commitment for a 10-year period, moving on.
I found it fascinating that this motion seems to give so much credibility to following Infrastructure Australia's advice. We just heard from the member for Grayndler a complaint that the Brisbane Cross River Rail was not included in the budget. Yet there was an interview on ABC Radio, that I believe was only this morning, where Steve Austin interviewed Jackie Trad. It was based on comments from a spokesperson from Infrastructure Australia, who said that Infrastructure Australia:
… has a number of outstanding concerns with the Cross River Rail business case and we have advised the Queensland government of these concerns.
We are working with the Queensland government to address these and we hope to be able to finalise our evaluation when they are addressed.
It is all well and good to promote an evidence based approach. However, if you do not like the outcome you cannot then stand up and complain, and that is exactly what we have had from the member for Grayndler. The member for Grayndler also did not take advice from Infrastructure Australia on the Perth Freight Link, despite the fact that it was identified by Infrastructure Australia as the highest priority infrastructure job. He has now decided that Infrastructure Australia is really good when it agrees with Labor's political agenda but really bad when it does not. That is not evidence based policy making. It is Albo's mirage. It really is. It is an absolute facade. It is an optical illusion. It is all about the politics.
Look at the spending on infrastructure by the coalition government in my patch of the world, on the Sunshine Coast in Queensland. You will see that a coalition government has extended a $181 million concessional loan for the Sunshine Coast Airport to become a fully fledged international airport. You will see 80 per cent of the $929 million works between Caloundra Road and Sunshine Motorway—the sod was turned only last week. You will see 80 per cent of the $187 million job around the Maroochydore Road interchange.
In the recent budget alone, we have $530 million of Commonwealth money for the Bruce Highway from Caboolture to the Caloundra turnoff and $120 million for the Deception Bay Interchange. Labor would never do this. Where the coalition has committed $6.7 billion to the Bruce Highway, Labor committed $4.1 billion. While the coalition was prepared to go 80-20 with the state, the Labor Party went 50-50. They are full of it. Unfortunately, it is all based on ideology.
I will finish with one point about Queensland and the asset recycling initiative. How much did we get out of that? Zero. Why? We got zero because the Labor Party in Queensland is ideologically opposed to it. It is all ideology from Labor.
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (12:22): I thank the shadow minister for infrastructure for bringing this motion and for continuing his relentless focus on this issue. He has demonstrated time and again that it is smart and targeted investment in infrastructure that we have been missing for these last four years.
The most telling statistic, against the numbers that were quoted by the previous contributor, the member for Fairfax, is that infrastructure investment in the best year of the Abbott-Turnbull government has been less than in the lowest year of the former Labor government. That failure is holding us back. It is preventing Australia from developing a more diverse and productive economy. It is preventing Australia from creating 21st century cities, industries, export opportunities and jobs.
Infrastructure is all the stuff that connects us together. It is the skeleton and the circulatory system that makes it all work and move—or not, as the case may be. It is the rail lines that move freight, the trains that get people to work and the roads and bridges that allow traffic to flow. It is the pipes, cables and other networks that deliver essential services like scheme water, gas, electricity and telecommunications.
Infrastructure is the functional bedrock of our cities and our regional communities, but it is also the path into our future. Without planning and implementing the next wave of infrastructure, Australia will fall behind and Australians will miss out. Twenty-first century infrastructure includes innovations that are necessary if we are to keep pace and keep evolving at a time of rapid change. We need investment to support sophisticated manufacturing industries like shipbuilding, especially in WA, which, unfortunately, appears to exist in a blind spot for this government. As we shift further towards renewable energy, we need investment in smart-grid technology and urban design that can accommodate off-grid developments—ideas that are being explored in the White Gum Valley project in my electorate.
But far and away the most important current infrastructure project is the NBN. At the moment, we are locked into an approach that is likely to give us a broadband network that will be sub-par at the point of completion, with no clear upgrade path. We know that people around the country are discovering that fibre to the node is often not much better than ADSL broadband. People in regional Australia are being further disadvantaged in comparison to their metropolitan cousins. We are seeing buck passing from telco service retailers.
If you want to do infrastructure well, you have to support planning, research and innovation; you have to provide rigorous decision-making processes to analyse, select, and schedule project work; and you have to ensure there is funding to deliver on those decisions. That is the approach Labor took in government. That is the approach the shadow minister for infrastructure continues to champion.
Sadly, in Western Australia over the last four years we have suffered the double whammy of underinvestment and bad process. The federal budget, handed down the week before last, continues that trend. There is not one new dollar in infrastructure spending for Western Australia. Thankfully, the people of Western Australia have chosen a Labor state government. That has seen the back of the Perth Freight Link. Instead, we have secured those funds for high-value local transport projects. In my electorate of Fremantle they include the North Lake Rd bridge; the widening of the freeway northbound from Russell Road; the upgrade of the Stirling Highway and High Street intersection; and the rail line from Thornlie to Cockburn Central, which is a key part of METRONET. I campaigned on those projects because I know how important they are to the community I represent.
Liberal members in this place said on several occasions earlier this year that for Western Australia it was the top-down, unplanned, wasteful and harmful folly of the Perth Freight Link or it was nothing. The Minister for Urban Infrastructure said the $1.2 billion would not be provided for other projects, and certainly not for METRONET. Well, it is amazing what a difference an election can make. I was very surprised to hear the member for Tangney describe this 180-degree turnaround as being an outcome that he and his colleagues were happy to negotiate. That must have been some negotiation! They essentially rolled over, the tough talk rubbish went out the door and—hey presto—those locked-up funds suddenly became available for the projects that we had said were needed. It would be similar to the Germans coming out in 1919, talking about the Treaty of Versailles and saying how happy they were with those negotiations. I like the member for Tangney; he is a good fellow. But if I am ever in a hostage crisis, Member for Tangney, please call in a professional!
Those funds are coming to Western Australia and that is a mercy. It does not mean the Abbott-Turnbull government has woken up to its neglect of Western Australia. As I said, the budget does not provide a single new dollar in infrastructure funding for my home state. We are being dudded with the barest minimum allocation when it comes to Defence shipbuilding work. The budget papers show no improvement in unemployment over the next year, 2017-18, which is heartbreaking for the 100,000 people in Western Australia who are still looking for work.
Mr MORTON (Tangney) (12:27): Consistency is important in politics. The member for Grayndler speaks of support for Infrastructure Australia, which he established, on the one hand, but when it is politically inconvenient he ignores their advice. The ALP chooses to ignore Infrastructure Australia's advice on the Perth Freight Link. In Infrastructure Australia's current Infrastructure priority list, the Perth Freight Link remains listed among the high priority projects and is the highest priority infrastructure project in Western Australia. It seems by the wording of this motion that the member chooses to ignore WA entirely. And I am disappointed that the member for Fremantle has seconded the motion, a motion that calls on the government to do nothing for Western Australia. Surely, as opposed to seconding the motion, he could have amended it to actually deliver something for WA.
Labor is ignoring the 10,000 jobs that the Perth Freight Link creates and the fact that the Perth Freight Link takes 7,000 trucks and 74,000 light vehicles off local roads each day—roads like Leach Highway, Farrington Road, South Street, Stock Road, North Lake Road and Beeliar Drive. East-west access across our city and access to Perth Airport, the Fiona Stanley Hospital, the St John of God hospital and Murdoch University would all benefit from the Perth Freight Link. Fourteen sets of traffic lights would be bypassed on Leach Highway and Stock Road.
We have to remember that the construction of Roe 8 would have impacted on only 0.49 per cent of the Beeliar Wetlands. It would save 450,000 tons of CO2 by 2031. Construction would include bridges at Roe Swamp and Horse Paddock Swamp, offset land, and power line realignment to utilise already cleared land. Despite its words on this motion, Labor wants to make our streets in WA less safe and more congested, particularly in the southern suburbs.
What do Infrastructure Australia say about the Perth Freight Link? They say:
The project aligns with Infrastructure Australia’s strategic priorities to ‘increase productivity’, ‘expand productive capacity’ and ‘build on Australia’s global competitive advantages’ through delivering a more efficient freight network.
Labor have been absolutely exposed on their infrastructure policies for WA. They want us to think that they are committed to an outer harbour, but let us look at the facts. Their own policy document says that they want to maintain Fremantle port as an operational port and they want to improve the management of truck movements to and from Fremantle port. Labor's commitment to investigate or study the outer harbour will be a rude shock to locals, who were conned into thinking that Labor would start work constructing that outer harbour. There is no such commitment to do so.
I join the member for Fremantle in welcoming the agreement to upgrade High Street between Carrington Street and the Stirling Highway. It is an upgrade of High Street between Carrington Street and the Stirling Highway; it is not just an intersection upgrade, like the member for Fremantle wants people to believe. It confirms that Fremantle port and the trucks that access it are here to stay. No-one has told the Mayor of Fremantle, Brad Pettitt, though, who says that this work may be potentially unnecessary because of the commitment to the outer harbour. Mayor Pettitt, there is no commitment to the outer harbour other than a study. I think the member for Fremantle should be very honest with the people of Fremantle about this.
I stand with the member for Fremantle in supporting the projects that he mentioned, but I wish he would support the Perth Freight Link—something that he has called ridiculous—because getting trucks and cars off our local streets is not a ridiculous project at all. A letter published in the member for Fremantle's electorate only recently states:
For Josh Wilson to call the Perth Freight Link ridiculous could send investments—both Government and private—away from Fremantle.
Why can’t Fremantle residents have faster access to Fiona Stanley Hospital, to the freeway and to the airport? Why can’t people from the South-West have faster access to Fremantle?
Why can’t we reduce pollution by building a highway that eliminates stop-start traffic lights?
… … …
With the anti-development brigade calling the shots, the future of Fremantle doesn’t look very bright.
And I agree entirely. Why can't the people of Fremantle have better access?
The government has confirmed our commitment to build the Perth Freight Link, and I am pleased that $1.2 billion is formalised as a contingent liability for this important project. Roe 8 and Roe 9 can be built. The money is there, but the political will is not. The member for Fremantle, the member for Burt and all WA Labor members need to convince Mark McGowan to back WA infrastructure and back WA jobs. I do not know why Labor wants to put the Greens and trendy people in inner-city cafes ahead of jobs and infrastructure. That is something the member for Grayndler can explain. (Time expired)
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (12:32): I rise to speak on the motion put by the member for Grayndler, who knows my electorate of Moreton well. I have stood alongside him at many places in South Brisbane because we have an important confluence of transport links. The Ipswich Motorway comes in from the west, servicing people from Toowoomba, Sydney and beyond. The motorway connects to the north via Ipswich Road or the east via Granard and Riawena roads. The Beaudesert Road brings people from the south-west through Acacia Ridge and Moorooka and into the city. Oxley Road is an important link to the growth corridors of Forest Lake, Heathwood and beyond. They go over the Indooroopilly bridge or the Western Freeway.
There are train lines. The Ipswich line brings people in from the west through Oxley, Corinda, Graceville and Chelmer. There is a spur off to the Beenleigh line through Tennyson for goods and coal. The Beenleigh train line connects the Gold Coast and Brisbane. The standard gauge interstate train line connects all the way from Perth through to Melbourne and Sydney and right up to Acacia Ridge. The goods depot at Tennyson, next to the Brisbane Markets, is the beginning of the journey for goods going north right through to Cairns. Mains Road is the second busiest bus route in Brisbane that is not actually a busway.
Moreton's transport routes are very busy and, sadly, are becoming more and more congested. I have nearly 19,000 businesses, and many of them are connected with transport. Traffic congestion is becoming a daily battle for many of my constituents travelling either to work or to study and even on the weekends when they are trying to access play. It is not just the inconvenience of being stuck in traffic, driving bumper to bumper for kilometres on end; traffic congestion has an economic impact on growth in Queensland.
The Merivale Bridge is currently the only rail crossing over the Brisbane River in the city's CBD. That is between the city of Brisbane and the Gold Coast. It is fast approaching capacity. Without a second rail crossing, Brisbane's economic growth will be reduced, along with its capacity to create jobs for the future. This is probably why the independent body Infrastructure Australia has already approved the Cross River Rail project. In fact we had the former transport minister, who has an electorate in mine, ready to go to the press conference with Anthony Albanese to announce it, but, sadly, it was sabotaged by Campbell Newman. The former Labor government funded the project in 2013 but since then the Turnbull government has failed all Queenslanders by stalling on this important infrastructure project that we need right now.
Increasing the capacity of the rail network would not only benefit people living in my electorate of Moreton but it would directly benefit people travelling into Brisbane from regional areas—not just the Gold Coast to the south and beyond but also the Sunshine Coast to the north and Toowoomba in the west. There has been deathly silence from the LNP federal members representing people in these regional areas, despite this infrastructure project having a direct benefit for their constituents. This project would facilitate an additional 19,000 bums on public transport seats during peak hour, which would make our roads less congested. Importantly, increasing the capacity of the rail network would benefit all Queenslanders by fuelling economic growth—everywhere north of the Tweed. The LNP betrayed our national car industry for short-sighted political reasons, but it is a no-brainer to invest in this type of infrastructure. If our cities are congested, our regions suffer right along with our urban areas.
In the 2017 budget the Turnbull government did not announce any funding for the Cross River Rail project. However, it did announce funding of $8.4 billion to build the Melbourne to Brisbane inland rail. 'The biggest rail project in 100 years', they said in their media release—a Warren Truss legacy. There is one problem I can see with this project: it ends at Acacia Ridge. Acacia Ridge is not on the Port of Brisbane; it is right in the middle of my electorate, and so far there is no plan to get the freight from Acacia Ridge to the Port of Brisbane or vice versa. There is no plan that does not involve double handling of freight and more B-doubles on the streets of Moreton.
There are a couple of options available to move freight between Acacia Ridge and the Port of Brisbane. One option is to build a tunnel from Acacia Ridge to the port—a tunnel right under the homes of people living in Sunnybank, Robertson and MacGregor with ventilation shafts going in the middle of these homes. The other option is for another train line to be built alongside the Gateway Motorway. That option would have a devastating impact on Karawatha Forest, one of the largest areas of remnant bushland left in the City of Brisbane. That would be a concern for the residents of Runcorn, Kuraby and Eight Mile Plains.
Sadly, neither of these options have been funded. This is like another fibre to the node type nation-building project—it just stops at Acacia Ridge. The trucks will move the freight from Acacia Ridge by road, which for transport is the equivalent of using copper in the NBN. It would create further congestion in my electorate. The Turnbull government needs to do more.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (12:37): I rise today to congratulate the Turnbull government on its expenditure in my electorate of Fisher for all things infrastructure. Just last week I welcomed the transport and infrastructure minister to my electorate where we turned the first sod on the Bruce Highway for the $929.3 million upgrade between Caloundra Road and the Sunshine Motorway. This will take the highway from four lanes to six lanes. It will provide a new interchange Caloundra Road and a new interchange at the Sunshine Motorway. It will provide a number of service roads. In fact, all up I am told there will be 100 kilometres of new roads just in that stretch that is to be improved. Together with parking and park-and-ride facilities, this is a fantastic outcome for the Sunshine Coast, and I am very proud to have announced it last year. The works are underway—they started last week—and we are all very excited about that on the sunny coast.
But we have not stopped there. In the budget two weeks ago the Treasurer announced some $650 million in addition to that already put aside for upgrades to the Bruce Highway south of Caloundra. That will provide us three lanes each way at a minimum from Brisbane to the Sunshine Coast. Once again I am very proud to be a part of the Turnbull government that has delivered those upgrades for the Sunshine Coast. Add to that another $180-odd million for the Nambour interchange, which takes this government's total expenditure on the Bruce Highway the $1.6 billion. That is the most money spent by a federal government on the Bruce Highway in my neck of the woods, and it is not before time.
When the member for Grayndler was the infrastructure minister, what did he do for the Sunshine Coast? Absolutely nothing. It reminds me of the old saying: 'What have the Romans ever done for us?' What did the member for Grayndler ever do for the Sunshine Coast? Absolutely nothing.
I am very, very proud to be part of a government that is providing this much-needed infrastructure, part of $75 billion over a 10-year investment program for this infrastructure, for the country. But we are not stopping there. We all know that dealing with the travel woes for Sunshine Coast locals going to Brisbane is not just predicated on an effective Bruce Highway; we now have to turn our attention to the duplication of the railway line between Beerburrum and Nambour. So, as well as $8.4 billion that this government has set aside for the Melbourne to Brisbane railway, this government has set aside another $10 billion across 10 years to fund the National Rail Program.
Out of that National Rail Program, the Palaszczuk Labor government can bid for the duplication of the railway line. In my discussions—and I am sure that my friend the member for Petrie has discovered the same thing—I have discovered that on not one occasion has the Palaszczuk Labor government picked up the phone and tried to speak to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and tried to get funding for that much-needed duplication of the railway line. We have to ensure that the state Labor government actually gets off its backside and applies for that money.
I intend to write to the Queensland government this week to formally request how we might advance the progress of the rail duplication. I hope they respond, unlike the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines, Anthony Lynham. I wrote to that minister on 2 February on behalf of my constituents at Mooloolaba Marina. I have had my office follow him up seven times since 2 February asking for a meeting between my constituents, me and him to progress the Mooloolaba Marina. Not once have we had a response that said, 'This is going to be a date.' If we get any response, it is: 'Well, we're getting to it. We're getting to it.' That was 2 February.
Minister Lynham, you are a minister of the Crown. It does not matter that I am from the opposite party. It does not matter whether my constituents do not vote for your lot. Please respond to my request. Let us have a meeting, and let us try to sort out the problems that Mooloolaba Marina are encountering. It is in your patch. Thank you.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Internet Content
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (12:42): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the easy access of violent sexually explicit material online poses a risk to our children's wellbeing; and
(b) authoritative research has linked regular consumption of pornography by adolescents depicting violence with increased degrees of sexually aggressive behaviour; and
(2) calls on our community to work together to:
(a) increase awareness that exposure to graphic images can influence children's attitude towards sexual behaviour;
(b) encourage open discussions within families; and
(c) utilise the services of the eSafety Commissioner's online iparent website to increase awareness of how families can keep safe online.
As individuals in this place, I am sure all members would agree that we do not always agree, but, when it comes to protecting the youngest Australians, our solidarity gives rise to a powerful opportunity to effect change. We unite because we put Australian children before politics. I thank you for the opportunity to bring this motion that notes that 'the easy access of violent sexually explicit material online poses a risk to our children's wellbeing'. It is a risk that at any level is uncomfortably large because the statistics do not represent lost earnings or productivity; the statistics represent child victims.
Technology is a wonderful thing, but it is a movable feast that can be harnessed for good as well as bad. As child advocate Hetty Johnston says, when it comes to technology, there is darkness in the wow. She offers an analogy that is like throwing a Molotov cocktail at my ever-flickering protective parenting instinct. She says giving your child access to technology without supervision is akin to dropping them off at King's Cross at midnight, picking them up in the morning and expecting them not to have been exposed to any harm. I think about how difficult absolute supervision is, given where, when and how often my children, my three sons, and our children, Australian children, access the internet, while at the same time realising that the associated challenge, no matter how difficult it is, is no excuse.
It is difficult to get solid figures for the size of the online pornography industry. How much of it is there? How big is the industry? Paid access is set to yield some $100 billion a year—that is, almost 25 per cent of the federal budget!—but roughly 80 to 90 per cent of users are accessing material for free. You get a good idea of its size by extrapolating that out. If 10 to 20 per cent represents $100 billion, putting a price on free access would make it a $1 trillion industry.
When you consider that authoritative research has linked regular consumption by adolescents of pornography depicting violence with an increased degree of sexually aggressive behaviour, the potential for harm and the reach of its impact become obvious. Many a researcher can point to data that shows a correlation, for example, between pornography and a shift in expectations, pressure and acceptance of coercive or forced sex—that is, a correlation between consumption of pornography and the normalising of rape.
Despite the potential for serious consequences, inappropriate pornographic content has become impossible for our children to avoid. My research suggests that a filter that will effectively shield our kids online and protect them from harm does not exist. Predators devote their lives to cracking such things, so it is unlikely to have the intended consequence of protecting children. Of lesser concern, but a consequence nevertheless, is that filtering is likely to inadvertently block adult access to legal content—but that is a completely different debate.
There is no easy fix. Our approach needs to be multifaceted. I am proud to support the introduction of measures that target revenge porn and I welcome discussion of what is known as Carly's law, which offers tools that enable us to act against online predators sooner. I call on the community to work together to increase awareness that exposure to graphic images can influence children's attitudes towards sexual behaviour. I also encourage open discussions within families. I know that when I spoke about it with one of my sons, who was 14, it was all a bit late. He said, 'Oh, Dad, I've seen all that—seen it at school.' I had missed the boat.
Ms Marino interjecting—
Mr HOWARTH: The member for Forrest would know. It is really important that parents in my electorate talk to their young children. Bravehearts actually say that you can start as young as three—which seems extremely young, but it is important to put it out there. I encourage open discussion within families. Make yourselves familiar, as members here on both sides of the House, with providers of advice and assistance so that you can connect families in your electorates with information and services that are available to support them. The organisation Porn Harms Kids have an enormous bank of information, and their website is pornharmskids.org.au. Utilise the services of the safety commissioner's online iParent website as well at esafety.gov.au. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms Banks: I second the motion.
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (12:48): Labor is committed to protecting children from exposure to inappropriate material over the internet at home, school and other public access points. Labor has a strong track record when it comes to promoting online safety. In government in 2008, Labor delivered $125.8 million towards a cybersafety plan to combat online risks to children and to help parents and educators protect children from inappropriate material and contacts while online. In 2010, Labor established the Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety as part of its commitment to investigating and improving cybersafety measures. The committee released a report with 32 recommendations, each of which was endorsed and responded to by the Labor government. More recently, in the November 2016 Senate report Harm being done to Australian children through access to pornography on the internet, Labor senators contributed additional comments. In that report, Labor acknowledged that the contemporary reach and accessibility of sexually explicit material, including pornography and sex education material via the internet, is unprecedented. For these reasons, I am pleased to rise to speak on this motion.
The potential harms of sexually explicit material include: distress for younger children; habitual or compulsive consumption of pornography; greater engagement in risky sexual behaviour, resulting in adverse sexual and mental health outcomes in many cases; body image and self-esteem issues; and negative impact on the development of healthy and respectful relationships, including the rise of problem sexting and revenge porn, and sexual offending by children, imitating acts they may have seen online. Of course, there is a place and context for sexual education, including information for young people about gender and sexuality, and increased awareness of sexual rights and responsibilities.
It is worth noting that the term 'children' is broad and that the needs, abilities, interests and behaviours of children are related to their stage of development. It is instructive to use more specific categorisations, such as 'young children', being 0 to 12 years of age, and 'adolescents' or 'young people', being 13 to 17 years of age, and to understand that age may affect whether, and the extent to which, children are vulnerable to portrayals of sexual activity.
I note also that the term 'pornography' is used to refer to a vast and diverse range of content, from soft-core imagery to graphically violent material that may in fact be refused classification in Australia, or images exchanged consensually over mobile devices, between people in relationships for example. For a broad range of reasons, including for the purposes of sexual education, the term 'sexually explicit material', or SEM, is preferred by social scientists, and is more useful given that children may produce, seek out or be exposed to a broad range of sexually explicit material on the internet.
Labor supports an evidence based best-practice approach to policy making and regards quality research as a sound basis for effective intervention. We advocate for more-sophisticated and nuanced approaches to inform progress on the important issue of the impact of sexually explicit material on children in Australia. While further targeted research would assist in understanding consumption, and the impact of sexually explicit material on children, it is, meanwhile, incumbent upon all in the community to safeguard children. Labor understands that we live in an era where many children have greater facility with technology than their parents and that, indeed, a multifaceted approach to protecting children from harmful content is an ongoing necessity. This includes measures such as adult supervision, technological access prevention measures, including appropriate and workable internet filtering, and education of children as well as adults.
In Australia, industry codes of practice require Australian internet service providers to make available an accredited internet content filter, a family friendly filter, at or below cost price. It is unfortunate that no control mechanism is 100 per cent failsafe, which is why the iParent web page, maintained by the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner, outlines a range of tools that parents may use to safeguard their children online, whether on a computer, tablet, smartphone or gaming console. I look forward to meeting with the eSafety Commissioner when she visits Parliament House next week, and to sharing information with my colleagues and constituents to assist in promoting the iParent web page within our local communities. Labor understands the value in promoting awareness amongst Australians about the varied tools for managing internet use.
Finally, as a mother of two young girls, I acknowledge the important sentiment of this motion and the need for all of us in this place to keep the protection of children paramount in our policy deliberations on this very important topic.
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (12:53): I rise in support of this very important motion moved by the Member for Petrie, which deals with an issue that at some stage could impact almost every single family, including my own, in my electorate on the Central Coast. The motion outlines the serious issues around accessing explicit material online, and the impact that it can have on adolescents in particular. It describes some of the approaches that we—our communities, and together as a nation—need to use to tackle this challenge. The first approach is to encourage open discussion within families. The second is for families to be aware of the resources and networks that are there to help them.
There is no doubt that this is an important issue that strikes a nerve in my community. A number of constituents in my community have raised this with me. Joanne from North Gosford wrote to me, deeply concerned about how sexually explicit content online could pose a risk to kids' wellbeing. Anthony from Mangrove Creek agreed, and added that the fact that almost everyone seems to have a portable internet device, carried and controlled in ever greater numbers by children, simply magnifies this problem. Drago and Linda, in Umina Beach, told me about the dilemma that even if a small number of children retain access to pornography on their mobile phones, they can still unfortunately show it to their friends. They wrote to me and they said, 'It's therefore nearly impossible for parents to protect their children.' It certainly may be increasingly difficult and challenging, but I certainly hope that it is not impossible. When it comes to the protection and care of our families, we need to do everything we can to support one another. So I am pleased to say that we are seeing an outstanding response from families and teachers on the Central Coast, who are working together to help tackle this issue.
In a few weeks' time, a cyber awareness forum is being held at the Mingara Recreation Club at Tumbi Umbi. The forum will ask and try to answer a number of key questions: Firstly, do you know what your children are up to? Secondly, do you know the consequences of online actions? And, thirdly, do you know how to protect your children? The event is being run by the Central Coast Council of P&Cs, alongside NSW Police Central Coast and with representatives from the New South Wales Department of Education. It will take place on 7 June from 7 to 9 pm, and it is designed just for parents, not for children. I am advised that there are already more than 100 people registered, and that the event has been well publicised in local publications such as the Central CoastExpress Advocate. The Express, in fact, reported recently about fears of an ingrained culture of sexting from children as young as 10, with police, principals and parents saying they have been shocked by the scale of the problem in schools and in sporting clubs around our local region.
The event organiser is Sharryn Brownlee, president of the Central Coast Council of P&Cs. Sharryn said that, while these reports are alarming, the forum is not about frightening parents, or getting into detail about the effectiveness of filters or the explicit nature of the content. Instead, the focus of the forum will be around empowering parents and helping them with methods of protection, as well as getting a better understanding of how a digital footprint can later fall into the wrong hands. Put simply, children can sometimes be just one click away from taking a video clip that is later distributed worldwide—and it can never be retrieved.
This is also where the government can play a role in assisting with effective resources and support. They include the Stay Smart Online website, the online portal of the eSafety Commissioner, and the iParent website. These websites are clear, up to date, and detailed, and they provide resources for victims, families, and community leaders alike. Along with telephone helplines and the outstanding work being done by our local police—Brisbane Water Local Area Command, in particular, do an outstanding job in our community—these are important resources that we should all be familiar with.
But the right response also includes moves like that which we saw over the weekend from the New South Wales coalition government to help stop revenge porn. The Berejiklian government announced tough new laws, where people who record or share intimate images without consent can be jailed for up to three years and fined as much as $11,000. The state's Crimes Amendment (Intimate Images) Bill 2017 will make it an offence to intentionally record or distribute an intimate image of a person without their consent.
In closing, can I recognise the people in our communities who are personally impacted by this issue, and acknowledge the hurt and pain it can so easily cause. May I also thank every parent, teacher, community leader, police officer and anyone else who is working to keep our children safe. I commend this motion to the House.
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (12:58): I thank the member for Petrie for this very important motion. As members will know, I have been working in cybersafety for many years, and I have delivered hundreds of presentations in schools and community groups and more broadly. I say to the member for Petrie that this is a very real issue, because I can give you the evidence from the children themselves, which many others may struggle with. One of the things I would say to parents is: why not have a look at your children's Google history. You can even google certain words yourself—certain anatomical words, perhaps—and see what you can come up with, and see how many of those sites actually ask a question about your age or what you can have access to. I also know that some of the young children whom I speak to who are looking at pornographic material are actually choosing to 'like' some of the items on there, and, out of those sites, it is not unusual for the site to harvest their name and attach it to that particular product. I met lots and lots of teachers and thousands of kids. One teacher of year 8 students—they were in year 8 when they came into that school—told me about three years ago that 100 per cent of her year 8 students had actually accessed serious pornography before entering her school. That was the age. This gives these young people a very distorted view of relationships and sexual relationships.
Of course, I have also had to deal with the issues around physical and psychological damage that go with learning about sex from a pornographic site. I asked the parents, when I had the parent sessions: 'Where are your children right now? Who are they with? What are they doing?' Generally, they can answer me, and they answer me very well. Then I ask them, 'When they're online, can you answer those same three questions—where are they, what are they doing and who are they with?' I ask that because they are with someone, they are doing things and they are somewhere. Those are very, very simple questions that I ask parents. I do know, from those young people, that they are allowed to have their devices in their rooms 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Often, there is unlimited access for those young people. I also know and warn parents about that secret calculator which is like a vault. Depending on how much is stored in that vault, you may find some very interesting information and photos in it.
Of course, it is very important for parents to communicate with their children before the first device is given to them. The family needs to have a discussion as a family about these devices and ask: 'What are the safety issues and the security issues? How are we going to use it as a family? What rules are we going to put in place for each other?' We all need to work with these rules in our families, and we all need to know the security strengths and weaknesses and some of the things that we might come in contact with. The young kids need to know how to stay in control. I ask them to actually help every other generation. I ask them whether they know more about being online and devices than their parents, their grandparents and their younger siblings, and the answer is, yes, they do. So I say they are a key part of the answer. They are fantastic with technology, and they do need to stay in control. There are some very good programs out there. Young kids do need to stay in control in this space.
I looked at an article—this is just some of the evidence—from 2015 in a local The Sunday Times. The article says that, on average, children are 11 when they are first exposed to online pornography and that there are over 430 million porn related search items online. So your chances of bringing one up are very real, and the chances also are for children. Most of the popular sites stream hundreds of thousands of short porn clips under explicit pornographic categories. They are very easy to find. Users can even upload their own material onto these sites. If you go into the gonzo porn space, you will find that there is no actual pretence of a plot required. They use descriptors such as '18 and abused', 'cute girl ruined' or 'cute girl destroyed'. We need to talk about violence against women and what this amounts to. These contain material that shows everything from violation, humiliation to degradation of women—and that is just a start. (Extension of time granted) I saw the research as well that was quoted from the US that showed that 88 per cent of some popular porn contains physical violence and 49 per cent shows verbal aggression, with women always the target.
Teenagers as young as 15 and young women are seeking treatment. I have spoken to some GPs as to what is actually happening, because these young people are learning about sex from a pornography site. There are real physical risks in this, and there is an increase in this type of behaviour. I saw a Netflix documentary that was promoted called Hot Girls Wanted. International pornography sites do not actually ask for age verification. A child can claim to be over 18, and most of those sites do not even have the capacity to check their age.
So it is out there. It is there for children. It is just a click or the wrong word away. Sometimes it is just kids being kids, yet they have access to this material. I looked at that secret calculator, that vault app, and it allows for storage of items in a hidden folder. It is disguised as a calculator, and it can be used to store inappropriate content. Parents need to be aware and to block these particular apps. I think parents need to install filters and software onto computers to block explicit adult sites.
There is a real need to communicate with your children to reinforce good relationships. The Choose Respect program works very well, as do other programs around respectful relationships. I would encourage every parent to have a look at iParent and check the ThinkUKnow website. There is some wonderful stuff on there for parents. I encourage them to communicate constantly with their children. The iParent portal says there are seven ways to make your home cybersafe, and I would encourage every parent to look at those and block, delete, keep the content and report it. Young people need to stay in control online, as do parents. I encourage every parent to have that discussion with their children as early as possible before the first device is given.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): The time for this debate has concluded. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day the next sitting.
Labour Hire Industry
Mr GILES (Scullin) (13:07): I move:
That this House:
(1) condemns the shocking findings uncovered by the Victorian Inquiry into the Labour Hire Industry and Insecure Work, including revelations of widespread underpayment, workplace health and safety breaches, maltreatment of workers, and tax avoidance in Victoria;
(2) welcomes the 35 recommendations made by the inquiry in its final report (August 2016);
(3) commends the Victorian Government for:
(a) establishing the inquiry; and
(b) committing to a labour hire licensing scheme in response to the inquiry's final report; and
(4) calls on the Australian Government to:
(a) investigate the operation of the labour hire industry Australia-wide; and
(b) commit to developing a national response to widespread exploitation in the industry based on findings.
I am pleased to be able to speak to this motion and, in doing so, to highlight a profound challenge facing Australia and in particular facing decision-makers in this place, our parliament, the seat of our national government. That is insecure work and its consequences, with particular reference to the labour hire industry, a growing sector in terms of employment in Australia and unfortunately also a dramatically growing sector in terms of exploitation and a range of unlawful activities. This challenge is recognised on this side of the parliament, in the union movement and by a number of state governments, in particular the Andrews government in my state of Victoria.
This motion was placed on the Notice Paper back in November and, since then, there has been some significant movement in Victoria and in other places in relation to these challenges of responding to insecure work and to these practices in the labour hire industry. The Andrews government in Victoria, since this motion was laid before the House, has moved to adopt the vast majority of the recommendations of the parliamentary inquiry into labour hire and insecure work.
Ms Ryan: Hear, hear!
Mr GILES: 'Hear, hear,' the member for Lalor says, and she is quite right to do so. They are taking clear action, as has the Palaszczuk government in Queensland. We have seen renewed advocacy in the union movement on these issues, and I highlight in particular the advocacy of unions like the National Union of Workers through their campaign 'Jobs you can count on'. But what has been missing in this of course is a national response, and that is extraordinarily disappointing and a betrayal of hundreds of thousands of Australian workers and their families.
This is not an issue, although it is gathering force. Five years ago, Brian Howe, a former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, undertook a report for the Australian Council of Trade Unions. This report was entitled Lives on hold. This title captured the challenge of relying on labour hire for work. For too many Australians it captured the real meaning of insecure work and all of its consequences. There are consequences economically but also across the whole of people's lives.
Since then things have not got better; they have got much worse. We on this side of House recognise that inequality in Australia is at a post-Depression high, and changes in the world of work are exacerbating this trend to inequality. The share of the Australian economy going to wages is at a record low, and insecure forms of work—especially engagement through labour hire agencies—are becoming more prevalent. In too many cases, they are the new normal.
The Victorian government's inquiry, which this motion relates to, has uncovered some disturbing but important evidence about what is happening in labour hire in Victoria and has formulated the basis of a sound response. In the very short time available to me, I want to make a couple of points about the inquiry, firstly about its process. The inquiry opened up a critical conversation in Victoria, not just in Melbourne but around regional Victoria as well, enabling stories to be told. We have heard important stories of exploitative practices—for example targeting visa holders—and unlawful practices, particularly in areas of occupational health and safety. The inquiry has enabled the Victorian parliament to consider the scope of the impact of insecure work, and particularly the labour hire industry, on the lives of Victorians.
The key findings of the inquiry are important. I am pleased that they have been, in very large part, accepted by the Victorian government and, in very similar terms, adopted by the Palaszczuk government in Queensland—setting up a licensing scheme and developing a code of conduct to regulate labour hire operators and to make it unlawful for employers in regulated industries to use unlicensed firms in labour hire. The inquiry advocates a national licensing scheme for labour hire operators, increasing occupational health and safety requirements, improving regulation of accommodation standards, and amending the Equal Opportunity Act in Victoria to ensure it applies to labour hire employees to prevent discrimination, regulate operators and remove unscrupulous conduct.
What is missing in this national crisis is a national response. Many of the issues here obviously relate to the legislative competence of this parliament, not state and territory parliaments. This motion commends the work of the Andrews government—and I also acknowledge the Palaszczuk government. We should also acknowledge the work of the union movement in drawing attention to these practices, as well as the work of the member for Gorton and of the Leader of the Opposition in this place. What is missing is the Turnbull government and a national response to a national crisis.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): Is there a seconder to the motion?
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:12): I second the motion.
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (13:12): The government understands that labour hire services form an important part of our economy and provide an opportunity for flexible work to the benefit of employees and employers. They are particularly important for seasonal work. So any changes to the law governing labour hire arrangements would be intended to capture those providers who are doing the wrong thing and not to discourage the use of labour hire as a legitimate form of employment. The government is aware of breaches of existing laws by certain labour hire operators. These are unacceptable and require action by the appropriate authorities. That is one reason why the Turnbull government is taking strong action. It has provided an additional $20 million to the Fair Work Ombudsman and has established Taskforce Cadena to target worker exploitation wherever that occurs.
The government also last year established a migrant workers task force chaired by the former ACCC chair, Professor Allan Fels, which has been asked to specifically examine whether changes to the law are needed to prevent the exploitation of migrant workers engaged through labour hire. In April the task force heard from Professor Forsyth, who was the chair of the Victorian inquiry. The task force also heard from the recruitment and consulting services association, which is currently developing an industry led certification process for labour hire operators. At its meeting, the task force welcomed the industry led reforms and also committed to giving careful consideration to further options for addressing the issue of worker exploitation in the context of labour hire.
Labour hire operators—and this is an important point to reiterate—are subject to the same laws as any employer. The government is also protecting workers by strengthening their protections in workplace laws. One of the very profound ways in which we are taking action—in contrast to those opposite who took no action when in government—is our Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill, which is currently before the parliament. The bill increases penalties for underpayment, it tackles some of the incredibly shocking exploitation we have seen by the likes of 7-Eleven, it gives the Fair Work Ombudsman investigative powers similar to corporate regulators and it holds head offices like 7-Eleven's responsible for underpayments if their network of franchisees is complicit or turns a blind eye.
We have an example in Geelong, where a young man was working for 7-Eleven. He was being paid properly on the books and yet he was being forced to make cashbacks. I am absolutely delighted that the Minister for Employment, Senator Michaelia Cash, along with the Fair Work Ombudsman acted so quickly, and that particular worker has now had the underpaid amount repaid to him. That is an example of how our government is acting, in contrast to those opposite when the Labor Party was in government, where no action was taken in this regard. We have seen the absolute hypocrisy from Labor when it comes to penalty rates. Let's not forget that it was the Leader of the Opposition who trashed the independence of the Fair Work Commission, which he helped establish and whose decisions he pledged to support, while ignoring deals between unions and big businesses, which have worked together to trade away penalty rates. That is why we are taking action to outlaw corrupting benefits. We have seen some really sleazy deals between some unions and Labor and large employers, where workers have been stripped of their penalty rates altogether by employers like Woolworths, Coles, KFC and McDonald's. We have also seen, under the Labor Party, a system where labour hire agreements supported the importation of workers under 457 visas working in places like McDonald's, when young Australian workers were denied the opportunity to do that work. We have seen absolute hypocrisy from Labor on this issue.
We are very proud to be standing up for workers who have been exploited in the workplace, through the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill and the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill. The exploitation of these workers is an example of what happens when Labor is in power. It is an example of the sleazy deals being done and their effect on all those young workers across Australia who have lost their penalty rates. I condemn this motion and I say, 'Hear, hear!' to the Turnbull government, which is taking strong action protecting workers. (Time expired)
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:17): I rise to support the member for Scullin's motion and, with him, to commend the Victorian and Queensland governments, who are taking action in this very critical space. We have seen, in the research done in the Victorian government's inquiry into the labour hire industry, how endemic this problem is in Victoria and across our nation, and it is reflected by the number of pages in that report and the number of papers that have been done. I join the member for Scullin in calling on the Turnbull government to take some action by sitting down with us to look at this, as we have done in our electorates.
On becoming the member for Lalor, one of the first things that I did was sit down with Tim Kennedy of the National Union of Workers to talk about the casualisation and insecurity of work, because, of course, in the electorate of Lalor, where transport and logistics is such a big employer, this is a critical issue. We have heard the member for Scullin speak about migrant workers, and I am very proud that the western community legal centre WEstjustice, who have made submissions to the Labor Party and to the Victorian inquiry, are doing fantastic work around the exploitation of migrant workers in this labour hire area. But I have to say that to reduce this conversation to the impacts on migrant workers does a huge disservice to workers in my electorate who are not in a visa class, were born in this country and are finding themselves being exploited. In Victoria, we estimate there are hundreds of thousands of workers involved in labour hire arrangements, but how would we know? It is not a regulated industry, so how would we know how many workers are being exploited under these arrangements and how would we know how to deal with it? We would start with an inquiry.
I note that the members with me today, I believe, all three of us—the member for Burt may have spoken last week on the government's legislation about protecting vulnerable workers—stood shocked that we were there. Here was a bill. It seemed to have a name that matched the intent of the parliamentarians in this place. But, of course, it did not go far enough. It did not address this specific issue. It did not address labour hire arrangements. It did not address a national register for labour hire companies. It did not address phoenixing and sham contracts.
I know that there are many unions across the country that have concerns in this space, as well as the NUW who have run a fantastic campaign—Jobs you can count on—and who have spent many hours talking to us and talking to residents in our communities on the shop floor, talking to people who are working in my electorate in transport and logistics, working with people who are casually employed to ensure that they understand their rights under the law and that those who are being dealt with outside of the law are registering those complaints. I also note that the TWU have specific concerns in this area and I know that our colleagues in the Senate are doing a lot of work to highlight those as well.
I reference Professor Anthony Forsyth's work in chairing the inquiry in Victoria. I commend the Andrews Labor government on taking up those 35 recommendations, most of which they will support. Most importantly, both there and in Queensland, under the Palaszczuk government, I commend those state governments for doing, let's face it, what is the federal government's work. We all know that industrial relations in this country, that the framework and laws that are designed to regulate industrial relations in this country, happen in this place.
Last week there was an opportunity, in the last sitting week, for this government to take some action. They gravely failed to take that action, and workers will continue to be in insecure work. They will continue to be casualised to the point where their families have no security, will continue to have young people—particularly young people in my electorate—waiting for that text to tell them whether they have work tomorrow or not, will continue not to be paid superannuation although it appears on their pay slip, will continue to have young workers who go to what they assume is their employer to say, 'I've had a bit of an accident at work; I've got an injury,' to be told they have to report that to a labour hire company for whom their only contact is a text message daily.
This government needs to take action. The member for Corangamite is passionate, but she cares not enough about the workers in my electorate and hers.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Sitting suspended from 13:22 to 16:01
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Melbourne Electorate: Kensington Neighbourhood House
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (16:01): I cannot imagine Kensington without the contribution of the Kensington Neighbourhood House. The house connects the Kensington community by running programs, including tutoring classes, community gardens, social events, meals, movie nights, employment services and the annual Kensington Community Festival. It simply would not be possible without the hard work of the house's wonderful staff, led by Carolyn Webster, and its volunteers. The house has a team of over 50 volunteers, who contribute more than 1,500 hours of voluntary work each year. What an incredible effort.
I was very pleased to secure a Stronger Communities grant to support the Kensington Neighbourhood House. I met some of the volunteers recently and I would like, in Australia's parliament, to acknowledge their work. I congratulate Kathy Noonan, Erica Green, Margaret Waller, Barbara Holland, Charlotte Gillam, Shannon Maxwell, John Trewin, Ben Somer, Anita Wong, Abigail Elliott, Marie Delaney, Sian Harris, Ros Gautier, John Brown, Suzanne Adams, Barbara Jacobs, Ylan Rodgers, Andrew Carra, Pia Robson-Garth, Barbara Simmonds, Frances McKay, Briley Miller, David Pontin, Janet Walker, Bei Shen Khor, Jocelyn Michell, Arshpreet Chadra, Lo An Tran, Sylvia Wheeler, Akhila Nagaraja, Ken Oag, Edith Chen, Kate Riches, Nick Plaister, Sofia Monkiewicz, Varsha Bapat, Ellie Hansford, Mohsen Keikhavani, Mia Pan, Michael Matira, Steven Weir, Thi Mai Le, Vivienne Bennett, Anisa Rogers, Shaun Norton, Nhu Duong, Persie Duong, Euisuk Jung, Penny Boyce, Alicia Pyszkowski and Zahraa Rohaizad. I say thank you to these volunteers on behalf of Melbourne and Kensington.
Calare Electorate: Ironfest
Mr GEE (Calare) (16:03): The great city of Lithgow is famous for many things, but in particular Ironfest. I attended Ironfest for the first time in April, and it certainly did not disappoint. Behind this unique and outstanding event is a hardworking team. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and mention them, including the production team: founding festival director Macgregor Ross; assistant festival director Boris Hunt; performance director Tahmour Bloomfield; historical re-enactment director Andrew Beattie; stalls coordinator Pennie Lennon; ticketing and marketing director Rich Evans, who did an absolutely outstanding job; site manager Bob Kemnitz; and other production team members, including Anna Culliton, Amanda Horner, Klaas Borst, Nathaniel Chan, Adrian Symes, Lucius Culliton and Stella Culliton.
I would also like to make special mention of the administration team: President Rich Evans, who again fulfilled his duties with great panache; Vice-Presidents Scott Machon and Bill Neubeck; Treasurer Erin Moloney; secretary Lucas Blanchard; and committee members Bob Kemnitz and the irrepressible Ian Rufus.
Can I also make mention of the Lithgow Lions Club, who have manned the gate for 16 years, including John Edwards, the president; Kim Edwards; Margaret Edwards; Sophie Chaplin; Bill Neubeck; Barbara Bretherton; Allan Blacklock; Robert Welch; Belinda Welch; Bill Evans; Alan Lindsay; and Joan Deeley.
Congratulations to everyone involved on an outstanding and successful event!
Port Adelaide Electorate: Volunteers
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide) (16:05): I was delighted to host the annual Volunteer Awards in Port Adelaide last Friday, which were again held at the Western Link Uniting Church in Findon. We were able to hand out well over 40 awards, including five Local Legend Prizes. Time does not permit me to go through the names of all the wonderful volunteers who were recognised that day, but I will mention just a few to show the diversity of volunteering in Port Adelaide. Mary Kelsey, from Albert Park Parish, has been volunteering for 65 years. Ann Pinzel, who is 81 years of age, has been volunteering at the Pennwood Village aged-care facility for 35 years. Alexandra Vakitsidis, the incomparable Alexandra from the Greek Orthodox community in Port Adelaide, has been volunteering for 45 years. David Bald, with his wife, Pat, runs the Osborne Over 50s, and has done for many, many years.
There were also youth awards: Rachel and Emily from the headspace service at Port Adelaide; Jessica Algar, who delivers meals at PISA, an Italian meals on wheels service in the western suburbs; Jessica Hargreaves from the Semaphore Centrals Netball Club, who at 22 has already played 453 games for the club, and coaches and does committee work as well; and Alex Dunkley, who, after a scare with brain cancer herself, volunteers for the Central Adelaide Palliative Care Service.
Our society would grind to a halt without the work of volunteers. It was a great pleasure to recognise their service again last Friday.
Menzies 'Forgotten People' Address: 75th Anniversary
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (16:06): Three-quarters of a century ago, Robert Menzies set out his political philosophy in a series of radio presentations, which have since become known as 'the forgotten people' broadcasts after the one he delivered 75 years ago tonight.
Menzies' creation of the Liberal Party was borne of long and often bitter experiences over decades. At first a Nationalist member in the Victorian and Australian parliaments, Menzies became a cabinet member in the United Australia Party government of Joseph Lyons. The UAP was a device constructed to join the popular Joe Lyons with the Nationalists—one appealing to the masses, the other controlled by big business. It was a marriage of convenience supported in part by Jack Lang's destruction of Labor. Lyons' achievement was to drag the nation out of the Great Depression through spending restraint and debt reduction, but his relationship with Menzies was often strained, leading the latter to resign from the cabinet.
Central to Menzies' philosophy was a reflection that it was the middle class—as he said, 'salary earners, shopkeepers, skilled artisans, professional men and women, farmers and so on'—who were the backbone of the nation but they were unrepresented in the Australian polity. That is why there are certain core principles to which the party has subscribed: free enterprise, lower taxes, less burden on small business, support for families raising children, a strong defence force and a commitment to a shared culture. They are the values of the 'forgotten people'. It falls to every generation of Liberals to ask: who are today's forgotten people and how do we best serve them?
Broadband
Ms COLLINS (Franklin) (16:08): Last Monday I held an NBN forum in my electorate of Franklin, along with the member for Lyons, Brian Mitchell, and Senator Catryna Bilyk. We had over 120 people come to talk to us about the issues they are having with the NBN. The shadow minister for communications, Michelle Rowland, spoke at the forum and talked to people about the issues that we are having in my electorate.
Two-thirds of people in my electorate have fibre to the premise but unfortunately some of them have fibre to the node, and we are getting a litany of complaints about fibre to the node. We are getting people saying they have been sold certain speeds but they could have got better on ADSL2+. We have people saying they were told their suburb was going live last October but they are still not able to connect. They have been told there is additional work but nobody can tell them what the work is or when it will occur. Indeed, one of my constituents said: 'Is this the 21st century service we were promised? We are behind Kazakhstan and Timbuktu—it's ridiculous!'
It is one big mess. Small businesses are going bankrupt and there is suffering and misery as people wait around for a proper NBN and the 21st century service that we were promised. There is great concern in my electorate. I have been overwhelmed with emails from constituents, both prior to and since the forum. Indeed, it even got a run—almost a full page—in the local Murdoch press. There is such concern in the community that the newspaper recognised that so many people in Tasmania are suffering with this second-rate fibre to the node.
Buddha's Day and Multicultural Festival
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (16:09): On Saturday I had the honour of representing the Prime Minister at the opening ceremony of the Buddha's Day and Multicultural Festival, now in its 22nd year. The festival is a major annual attraction held in Federation Square in Melbourne, which commemorates Buddha's birthday and celebrates Melbourne's multicultural and multifaith society. The event was superbly organised by the community, as led by Mr David Yu, President of Buddha's Light International Association of Victoria, and Fo Guang Shan Melbourne, and was attended by tens of thousands of people.
Buddha's birthday is traditionally known as Vesak day, which is rich in symbolism and spiritual symbolism to welcome peace and happiness and to affirm the commitment to the precepts of self-serenity, family, tranquillity, peer respect and social harmony. Traditional Buddhist ceremonies were showcased, including Bathing the Buddha, Tea Meditation and a Twilight Light Offering Ceremony.
The festival is a wonderful example of why the Turnbull government is proud of its non-discriminatory immigration policy and the fact that Australia is the most successful multicultural national on this earth. This position is exemplified in my electorate of Chisholm, the third-most culturally diverse electorate in Australia. The diversity in Chisholm is reflected in its blend of religious faiths. In the words of the Prime Minister:
Our nation has been vastly enriched by faiths of every tradition, each contributing its own unique and special thread to the multicultural fabric of our society.
New Leaf Medical Clinic
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (16:11): I take this opportunity to congratulate Dr Umber Rind on the opening of the New Leaf Medical Clinic, in Campbellfield in my electorate, where I had the great pleasure of cutting the ribbon, just recently. New Leaf Medical Clinic was established to provide women of Indigenous, migrant and refugee backgrounds a safe, respectful, comfortable and culturally sensitive environment in which to receive all their healthcare needs. Dr Rind has recognised a need to create a space to protect and treat these vulnerable women who have at times been disadvantaged and poorly treated by the healthcare system.
In naming the clinic 'New Leaf', Dr Rind wants to remind these women that that is exactly what they are doing with their health care and their decision to call Australia home—they are turning over a new leaf. This safe and aesthetically appealing one-stop-shop health practice includes GP services, podiatry and physiotherapy, and includes break-out rooms for the women to nurse children and to generally unwind. Soon there will be a psychologist on board to assist refugees with mental health needs that have arisen from the trauma of their experiences. Dr Rind says, 'Being a refugee and coming to a new country can be so daunting, and many times they are faced with overrun and uncomfortable health clinics and doctors who they don't feel comfortable with. These women need a space where they feel comfortable and they know they are safe, no matter what doctor they see.
I congratulate also Dr Mustafa Hussein, Umber's husband, who did most of the work on the day.
Mallee Electorate
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (16:12): Last Friday and Saturday I had the pleasure of attending the Mildura horticultural field days. I saw there a level of confidence that I have not seen for a long time. The federal government has invested in water infrastructure and we now have three free trade agreements, with Korea, China and Japan. We have also the instant tax write offs, which are really reaping dividends. If you are buying something for $20,000 or less, you can deduct that from your taxable income instantly—it really well. But the beauty about it is that not only does it help the 17,000 small businesses that function in Mallee but it really helps the local community, because the things you buy are pipes, shed, tanks, utes, computer equipment—the sorts of things that are sold in small businesses across the country. I think that those tax deductibility things that you put in the budget really—
Mr Broadbent interjecting—
Mr BROAD: Yes, you could buy a ute for $20,000. It's amazing what you can get. I would not say it is a good one, but you could buy one. The things you can get are really good value.
Also this week we had Darren Chester, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in the patch. He announced $20 million for the Calder Highway and $20 million for the Western Highway. Having overtaking lanes on a road that is undulating means that you can pause until you have a safe time to overtake, instead of trying to overtake on a dangerous stretch of road.
So there are some good things happening in the Wimmera-Mallee. Come and have a look. The field days were a great day out.
Public Transport
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (16:14): The New South Wales government's planned privatisation of inner-west bus services will result in worse, not better, transport for commuters across the region.
As the member for Grayndler and the shadow minister for transport, I will fight alongside the public to prevent this privatisation—which Luke Foley's Labor Party is of course opposed to—from proceeding. The sell-off of services will lead to jobs being lost, routes being cut, fares increasing and service levels dropping. Hundreds of thousands of people in the inner west, including workers, students and pensioners, depend heavily on public bus services. Any cuts to these services will have a real impact on their lives. The government claims that after their sell-off the routes and prices will not change, but we know that private bus services only operate anywhere in Sydney with massive public subsidies.
Transport Minister Constance seems to think that he can justify this privatisation by crudely denigrating the bus drivers, but the commuters of the inner west know that these drivers do an excellent job in difficult conditions. I pay tribute to the drivers on the 412 and 423, my local bus drivers. Mr Constance has launched this attack on the inner west for purely partisan purposes. The Premier needs to intervene and step in before the minister does any more damage.
Salvation Army Australia
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (16:15): There are a group of people who go where no-one else will go. If you are not on fire, you do not need the fire brigade. If you have not broken the law, you do not need the police. If you are not in dire straits health wise, you do not need the ambos. That group are called the Salvation Army. They go where nobody else will go. They will go to somebody that nobody else has a reason to go to. They go where they are asked to go.
That is how I finished my address on Friday morning when we launched the Red Shield Appeal with Amanda Hart. Her father was there from the city. Lieutenant Amanda Hart and all her team at the Salvation Army at Warragul gave a great presentation regarding the Salvation Army and what they do. I was thrilled to be asked to go. Actually, I was filling in for somebody else who could not turn up.
The most important thing is that the Salvos will go where nobody else will go, and we appreciate everything that they do for us. They are there to go to people when we do not have the ability or are not in the place or do not have the time and the space to do what they can do. They do marvellous work throughout the whole of Australia but especially in regard to the homeless, families who are having a tough time and women who are on their own with kids. They are there for all of them on our behalf, not on their behalf. They do it on our behalf. So it was great to launch the appeal, and I hope that their appeal is extremely successful.
Edmunds, Ms Carol
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (16:17): With Mother's Day just a few weeks ago—and I hope every mother in this place and every mother around the country had a lovely, lovely day—I would like to congratulate Burnie mother Carol Edmunds, who was recently named as Barnardos Mother of the Year. This award recognises the role that mothers play in nurturing children to help them reach their full potential, and Carol has certainly gone above and beyond for her children.
Carol made the decision to take on her husband's eight-year-old sister, Kelly, following her mother's death. Raising Kelly as one of her own, Carol took care of Kelly's every need. With two sons of her own, Carol has ensured that Kelly has never missed out on having a mum. In fact, it was Kelly who nominated Carol. In her nomination she said:
Carol believed in me at times when I didn't believe in myself and she encouraged me to be whoever and whatever I wanted to be …
So it is no surprise that Carol was named Barnardos Mother of the Year, the first Tasmanian in eight years to be so. As a mother myself, I can see the great lengths that Carol has gone to to ensure that Kelly has been part of her family, and this award is testament to this. Congratulations, Carol, and to all the mothers out there who go above and beyond for their children.
Wright Electorate: Horse Industry
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (16:18): Once again, Beaudesert, situated in the heart of the Scenic Rim, is putting its case forward to be known from this time on as the thoroughbred capital of Australia. It is doing an enormous job in backgrounding thoroughbreds for the industry. It is strategically placed exactly halfway between the Cairns and Melbourne thoroughbred industries, which puts Beaudesert at the central part of the industry. Of course, we compete for that title against Scone, but more recently we have been doing some stuff that Scone is not.
I want to give my acknowledgement and congratulations to Peter Gray and Rod Richardson. Both of them have been thoroughbred and racing owners and trainers for over 20 years. More recently, these guys have chartered a 747, decked it out—custom fit—with 80 stalls, and sold 79 horses in one sale to Vietnam the other day, leading the edge in the Australian thoroughbred industry. The care and attention that these horses are shown during transport is leading edge. I think it was said that there was only one other plane, which is owned by some of the families out of the United Arab Emirates, that was better decked out than this plane. Congratulations to our trainers who are out leading the world edge. Scenic Rim should be known from this point on as the thoroughbred capital of Australia.
National Palliative Care Week
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (16:20): I rise in this place today to speak about the importance of palliative care in the healthcare continuum. This week is National Palliative Care Week, and the theme is: 'You matter, your care matters. Palliative care can make a difference.' This year, Palliative Care Week is of great significance to me, my husband and our family, as my mother-in-law is in the palliative care unit at the Townsville Health and Hospital Service as I speak.
This can be an incredibly stressful time for both the person and the family, especially if the family find it challenging to have the conversation about the person's end-of-life wishes. End of life in our culture seems to be very difficult and often ignored, as many people find it very hard to talk about dying. Having the experience of a good death is so very important for the person and the family. Health services today have created a focus on patient-centred care throughout the continuum of care, but we must also remember to include family and natural supports in this conversation, especially if the person wishes to be cared for at home.
There is a huge need for palliative care to be provided in aged-care facilities. My experience recently with my father demonstrated that, unless the family is strong and has a good GP, the person, most likely, will be sent to hospital. Our experience was exceptional, as my father's GP and the aged-care facility were amazing when my mother insisted that my father was not to be sent to the hospital. My experience tells me that we must invest in quality palliative-care services both in our communities and in aged-care facilities.
Marchetti, Mr Francesco 'Frank'
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (16:22): It is with great sadness that I rise to pay tribute to an exceptional man from Mackay in my electorate who died last night chasing a dream he had been pursuing for much of his life. Francesco Marchetti, better known as Frank, died on the Tibetan side of Mount Everest, with the official word from the Tibet mountaineering association being that he breathed his last at an altitude of 7,500 metres. His wife, Sandy, was told that Frank had reached the height of 8,600 metres. If this is correct, he was so close—no more than 250 metres from the summit. Frank was forced to descend to lower camps due to altitude sickness and, sadly, did not recover.
Frank Marchetti was not reckless or foolhardy. He was meticulous about planning and preparation. He had put 16 years of research into this. It was his fourth visit to Everest and the second time he went to tackle the summit. He was trekking with a group in 2015 when the region was hit by a severe earthquake. Still, he wanted to go back and conquer that mountain. Frank Marchetti was a true gentleman and a high achiever. He was a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve, a great photographer, a diver, a hiker and a runner—a leader in many fields. He was a much-loved husband to Sandy and father to Alyce and Brenton. He was also a great adventurer who thrived on challenge. Frank Marchetti, we salute you.
Oxley Electorate: Brisbane Rotary Fun Run
Oxley Electorate: 4074 Family Fun Day
Mr DICK (Oxley) (16:23): Like hundreds of other Oxley locals in the Centenary suburbs, I was up bright and early last Sunday morning to take part in the Rotary Fun Run at Rocks Riverside Park. Now in its 12th year, the Rotary Fun Run is organised by a terrific team of volunteers from the Rotary clubs of Brisbane Centenary and Brisbane Taylor Bridge, who not only put on a fantastic event for the whole community but also support and raise money for charities, including the Wesley Choices program and BeefBank. This year, almost 700 participants took part, including the under-10-kids dash over one kilometre. A special thanks to John Cridland and all the other volunteers from the Rotary clubs of Brisbane Centenary and Brisbane Taylor Bridge for all their hard work on another successful event.
But this was only the start of a big day down at Rocks Riverside. Later in the day, thousands of locals attended the second annual 4074 Community and Beyond Family Fun Day, another fantastic local event organised and run by a dedicated team of volunteers led by Lisa Baillie. I was privileged to take part in the judging of Centenary's Next Great Baker, supported by a wonderful Centenary dentist alongside the amazing Lyn Lincoln from the Oxley Country Women's Association as part of the judging panel. My congratulations go to everyone involved for putting on another spectacular day for our local community and I look forward to attending next year's event.
Banks Electorate: Padstow RSL Youth Swim Club
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (16:24): On 6 May I attended the presentation day for the Padstow RSL Youth Swim Club. It was great to be there again this year. It is one of the largest, if not the largest, swimming group in the entire Banks community. It was really good to be there to attend their awards ceremony.
The club meets at the Max Parker Leisure and Aquatic Centre and uses the pools there at Revesby. The club has had a lot of success over the years. In fact, just this year they had over 20 swimmers competing at the state championships, in March. It was a fantastic event for the club. The club also plays a broader role in supporting Padstow RSL Sub-Branch through a range of activities, such as Anzac Day.
On the day it was good to acknowledge Matilda Karatas, who was recognised for her contribution to the club as a state representative, a learn-to-swim instructor, and for her efforts in fundraising for the club. She was nominated by the club for the Banks Outstanding Sporting Achievement award, and it was good to be able to present it on the day. I would like to thank President Phil Kennedy and all the committee members of the hard work they put into making sure the club is so strong and provides such a great service, particularly for the young people of our area.
Greek Festival of Sydney
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (16:26): On Friday, 5 May this year I had the great pleasure of attending the closing night of the Greek Festival of Sydney, at The Grand Roxy, Brighton-Le-Sands. Over a month earlier I had attended the opening night. This fantastic event is in its 34th year of celebrating the incredible contribution the Greek community and Greek culture have made to Australia, and, of course, in the electorate of Barton. For those of us who live in Barton there is no question about the importance of the Greek-Australian community. Most of the Greek community lives in Earlwood and Brighton-Le-Sands.
This event is a highlight in our calendar in Sydney thanks to the incredible energy and dedication of its organisers—people like Nia Karteris, who has spent over 15 years working for the Greek Orthodox community and the Greek community more broadly. It is also thanks to Harry Danalis, and his council, at the Federation of the Greek Orthodox Communities of Australia, who have worked tirelessly for the community for many years.
The Greek Festival of Sydney offers an opportunity for people to experience some of the culture of Greece, its history, its connections and its language. The volunteerism of this community festival is just extraordinary. But it is also an opportunity for us to reflect on the richness this culture bestows on us. It is a reminder of how much less vibrant our suburbs, towns and cities would be without the Greek community. The festival gets bigger and bigger every year. I congratulate the Greek community in Barton and across the country and thank them for their work.
Menzies: Caring for Kids
Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (16:27): Menzies: Caring for Kids, is an organisation based in Frankston in my electorate of Dunkley. Menzies: Caring for Kids supports young people in Frankston and on the Mornington Peninsula. Over its more than 150-year history it has evolved many times to fulfil the needs of the community. It originally developed from the Ragged School Mission, founded in inner-city Melbourne in 1865, which provided residential care to children from 1895. In the early 1900s, the mission moved to Frankston and became known as the Minton Boys' Home. Later, the organisation underwent another name change and became The Menzies Home for Boys. The name honoured Mr. James Menzies, the father of Sir Robert Menzies, a former Prime Minister and the founder of the Liberal Party. He was the president of the committee of management for 20 years. I should note that he was originally from Jeparit, in the seat of my neighbour, the member for Mallee.
The core mission of Menzies: Caring for Kids is to support young people who can no longer live with their families so that they can be safe, educated and lead fulfilling lives. Rather than providing housing, they invest in direct programs that create more opportunities for some of the most disadvantaged young people in our community. I am proud to acknowledge the tremendous work that Menzies: Caring for Kids does in Dunkley and in the region and I commend them for their long service to the community.
Macquarie Electorate: Mental Health Services
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (16:29): I had the pleasure of facilitating the annual Dean's Forum at the University of Sydney for the Dean of Health Sciences, Kathryn Refshauge. This important gathering brings together people from the health profession, academia, government and user groups to consider the major challenges specifically facing the allied health system. What I took out of the event was that we must move to a more patient-centric approach to health.
That is exactly what I did last week when Hawkesbury residents joined me to start identifying key gaps in the mental health services available in the region. Our group included people who have accessed mental health services for themselves or family members or who, through their work, interact with people who need mental health support. I want to particularly acknowledge Simon Griffin. Simon has a real commitment to seeing improved access to services across the Hawkesbury.
The detailed discussion provided valuable insights into the service gaps in the region from the crisis point through to recovery and day-to-day support to ensure people stay well. At the top of the list was access to services, which tend to be based in Penrith. Penrith might only be 20 kilometres from Richmond, but it can be a two-to-three-hour trip by public transport and it is a lot longer from places like Bowen Mountain, Bilpin and Colo Heights. There is not a single fix but I look forward to taking the next step of the process with service providers and health professionals.
Murray Electorate: Infrastructure
Mr DRUM (Murray—Chief Nationals Whip) (16:30): On Tuesday last, the Treasurer handed down the 2017 budget. The people of rural and regional Australia are applauding the commitment that this government has to education, the disability sector and the regional infrastructure program which it has outlined. I am proud to be part of this coalition government that recognises how important regional investment is to this nation.
Following the budget, I had the opportunity to host Darren Chester, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in the electorate of Murray. Together we announced a $10 million allocation to fund a detailed business case and get preliminary work started on the transformation of the region's rail program and rail services.
The people of Murray electorate are grateful for this initial allocation and, following the announcement, we had discussions with local government, manufacturers and produces about the future infrastructure needs of the greater Shepparton region and the greater Goulburn Valley region—especially surrounding a fully integrated transport infrastructure plan. Major infrastructure works are required in the Goulburn Valley for the producers and their processors as they are rapidly developing export markets, and large increases in volume for fresh produce are forecast into the future. As a result, we are asking Minister Chester to request that the $10 million for planning be broadened to complete a comprehensive and detailed plan that integrates rail freight, rail passenger services with air transport and road transport.
Workplace Relations
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (16:32): Today I am calling on the government to schedule a debate in this House about wages. If they will not do it, I will, because wages growth in this country is at an all-time low. At 1.9 per cent in 2016 and less in the last quarter, wages growth is barely keeping pace with the cost of living. That is, wages are going backwards and this government does not have a plan to do something about it. There is no good news in this budget for the average Australian worker. In fact, you have never seen a more pessimistic outlook from this government—nearly 95,000 fewer jobs in the economy at the end of the forward estimates and wages looking anaemic.
It is bad news for workers, but it is also bad news for business, because with less money in their pockets there is less money to spend in the small businesses and shops around my electorate, around yours and in fact around every electorate in the country. The government does not have a plan to do it. In fact they are doing the exact opposite to what workers need. Instead of helping workers to increase their wages, they are cheering for a cut of penalty rates—a cut of around $77 a week for a worker who relies on penalty rates.
The government must schedule a debate so that we can talk about the things that matter to real workers. If they won't, we will.
Veterans' Affairs
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (16:34): Last week I was honoured to host the Prime Minister and the Minister for Veterans Affairs at the Colonel Light Gardens RSL in my electorate of Boothby. The Prime Minister, minister and I met with veterans, families and support groups to discuss our $350 million commitment to supporting our returned servicemen and women by modernising departmental systems to reduce claim wait times, extending treatment for mental health conditions, introducing new DVA gold card categories and providing further funding to commemorate the Centenary of ANZAC. Both the Colonel Light Gardens RSL and the adjoining Colonel Light Gardens Primary School are Centenary of Anzac grant recipients. The school principal, Rick Bennallack, with students Kiana and Callum, presented their Anzac commemoration DVD to the Prime Minister and minister.
We were also joined by my other local RSLs, including Mitcham, Marion, Brighton and Blackwood, the RAAF Association of Mitcham and the Vietnam Veterans' Federation. These wonderful organisations, along with other groups in attendance, including the Plympton Glenelg RSL, Payneham RSL, the Partners of Veterans Association, The War Widows' Guild, Veterans SA, Legacy, the TPI Association, the Defence Force Welfare Association and Soldier On, do so much to support our veterans and their families.
Special thanks must go to the Colonel Light Gardens RSL's President, Hank Dirksen, the women's auxiliary and Pastor Matt Lehmann of Trinity Inner South church for hosting us. Together we support, honour and remember those who have served, those who paid the ultimate sacrifice for our nation, and their families.
Hinder, Mr Jayson
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:35): This morning nearly a thousand Canberrans filled St Paul's Manuka to bid farewell to Jayson Hinder, a much loved and significant contributor to our community, who tragically died in a motorbike accident. He is an enormous loss to our community—to Canberra—and touched so many lives, which was evident at the funeral today.
Jayson had a keen sense of social justice, forged as a young child when his mother was forced to sell the family home after his father died. He had an acute understanding of the challenges faced by people left behind, those who do not have access to opportunities. He had a strong moral compass and was guided by the common good. He was a mechanic, a banker, a lawyer, a politician, a Rugby tragic and a bikie. He was a loving husband, a loving father and a loving son. He was a brutally, mercilessly honest but fiercely loyal friend and he was a tireless advocate for individual and community empowerment through access to finance, through education, through lives free from domestic violence and through decent public policy.
Today's farewell reminded us about what can be achieved when a life is lived to the full, in the company of those you love, for the benefit of others. Jayson's life was too short, but he leaves behind a remarkable legacy and a life of service to the community—a legacy that will live on and for which we give thanks. My deepest sympathies are with Jayson's wife, Lisa, his children, Nigel, Oliver and Madeleine, and his mother, Colleen. Vale Jayson Hinder. Rest in peace.
Legal Aid
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (16:37): Over recent weeks I have been able to catch up again with many of the community legal centres around Brisbane. Thanks to the Women's Legal Service, the Youth Advocacy Centre, Basic Rights Queensland and the LGBTI Legal Service, who I ran into yesterday at the Brisbane fair for International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia.
I am proud that in this budget the government is providing an extra $55 million in additional funding to our community legal centres over the next three years. The new money is for frontline services. It will be delivered via state governments, and it is proudly intended to prioritise victims of family and domestic violence. It is a further step that builds on the Turnbull government's other historic commitments to protect Australians from violence, including the $100 million for the Women's Safety Package and the $100 million Third Action Plan.
This commitment should help support many community legal centres around Brisbane, such as the ones I just mentioned in passing, and also the Brisbane Family Law Centre in Albion, the Legal Advisory Service in Fortitude Valley and North Brisbane Legal Services. I welcome this funding announcement, I congratulate the Attorney-General, George Brandis, for his work in this area and I look forward to continuing to work productively with all of the community legal centres around Brisbane for the benefit and the welfare of all of the people of Brisbane.
National Palliative Care Week
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (16:38): Time is such a precious commodity. I also believe it is relative. It slips by so quickly when the task is enjoyable or demanding and inversely can drag on when it is not. On a broader scale, none of us actually know how much time we have. This week is National Palliative Care Week, and I want to take a moment of time to thank those who spend their time caring for people whose time is running out. It takes a special calibre of person to do that job: an ability to read a situation and to act with professionalism, care and compassion. I lost my father last year and I am incredibly indebted and grateful to the palliative care team, along with my family, who cared for him in his final days.
Good palliative care means the world to the dying and to their loved ones. In New South Wales we do not have enough qualified palliative care doctors and nurses to meet the growing need. The Cancer Council estimate at least 10 specialist palliative care doctors and 129 palliative care nurses are needed in New South Wales alone. They are campaigning for more.
I would ask you, in this National Palliative Care Week, to consider adding your voice to the campaign for better palliative care for the dying and their families. As we celebrate life, please take the time to talk about the end-of-life care you would like, and a place to start is dyingtotalk.org.au.
Dink, Mr Hrant
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (16:40): In March I had the privilege of attending an event to commemorate and honour Hrant Dink, his life and the incredible work he did for Turkish and Armenian communities. Hrant Dink dedicated his life to resolving Turkish-Armenian relations. He devoted his journalistic career to recognising the hardships of the Armenian people and attempting to establish reconciliation between cultures. Hrant Dink began this process through establishing the first Armenian newspaper in Turkey, which was also published in Turkish and spoke about issues which were long considered to be taboo. Despite enduring threats from extremists about his statements on the Armenian genocide, Hrant Dink continued to fight to defend human rights at all costs.
I was fortunate enough to hear Rakel Dink speak about her role as the President of the Hrant Dink Foundation and her commitment to continuing her husband's legacy. Rakel discussed the importance of protecting human rights and preserving the culture of minorities, with the main goal of normalising Armenian-Turkish relations.
The Armenian-Australian community has a valued role in our society. As a multicultural nation, we must respect and honour minority cultures and learn from their knowledge and experience. Despite his tragic death, Hrant Dink will be remembered for his dedication and courage in defending human rights and pursuing justice.
Jetty Road
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (16:41): Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, I rise in support of the City of Holdfast Bay in my electorate, especially in and around the suburb of Glenelg, which you had the pleasure of visiting with me last Friday. It has made recent requests, together with the local businesses on Jetty Road, for funding assistance to mark the completion of the tram works along Jetty Road. Jetty Road is recognised as one of South Australia's major shopping and tourist destinations, offering a diverse range of hospitality, retail, restaurants and cafes. I urge my colleagues on both sides if they are in Adelaide to, please, stay down in Glenelg and support the Jetty Road traders and businesses.
Jetty Road has undertaken necessary tram-track works. It is completely being changed. This will result in Jetty Road being closed for a couple of weeks. That is not good for the businesses there. It will be followed by a further week in which the intersection of Jetty Road and Brighton Road will be blocked. This will have a severe impact on visitors to Jetty Road, affecting traders' profits.
The City of Holdfast Bay has been proactive in implementing initiatives to curb the negative impact on traders and other businesses at a considerable expense to the council. These initiatives include promoting that Jetty Road is open for business, even though there are roadworks taking place. We are urging people to go down there and to spend their money there. The shops are still open. They are even waiving their parking fees. I commend them for their good work and support them in applying for funding to plan an event that will generate considerable interest— (Time expired)
Rotary Foundation
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (16:43): On Saturday night I attended a fantastic event hosted by the Rotary Club of Mossman to celebrate the centenary of the Rotary Foundation. At the event, held on the beautiful High Falls Farm, which is about 14 kilometres out of Mossman, six local people were awarded for their outstanding contributions to the Douglas community as Paul Harris Fellows.
Marjory Norris, Shirley Vico and Joan Gray established the Mossman District Nursing Home Committee more than two decades ago. Since then, they have worked tirelessly to get an aged-care facility built at Mossman. The site works are now underway. That is a fabulous achievement in partnership with the Salvation Army Aged Care Plus. Wendy Fry works for the Mossman State High School and is involved with Rotary through the Mentors in Violence Protection program. Wendy was integral in driving the program with teachers and other staff and students. Sara Harris runs the youth centre at Mossman and was commended for her work to engage young people, especially Indigenous youth. Richard Burchill is a member of the Kuku Yalanji, and for many years has actively worked to improve health and wellbeing for people in the shire.
On behalf of the Leichhardt community, I would like to say thank you to all of you for your contribution. It is greatly appreciated. It certainly goes to show that the original impetus of the Rotary Foundation back in 1917 to 'do good in the world' is alive and very, very well in the Douglas shire.
Higher Education
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (16:45): As one of 10 children from the bush raised by a single mum, a battler, I know that education is the great enabler in Australian society. When I visit Griffith University's Nathan campus, I see the transformative power of education up close, changing the lives of individual students, creating alternative futures, rewriting family stories and family trajectories, and transforming our economy as a whole as we embrace the information revolution. For so many uni students an education can lead to a lifetime of higher earnings. It brings exposure to those things that make life truly rich: friendship, social mobility, creative thinking and lifelong learning.
Our society is richer when we are challenged with new ideas that shape debates and foster creativity. Therefore, it is completely unacceptable that the Turnbull government is seeking to build barriers against students, dashing their dreams of ever entering university. Access to university should be determined by your willingness to work hard and how smart you are, not your parents' bank balance. This year Malcolm Turnbull's budget has delivered fresh attacks on the tertiary education sector. He has hiked up student fees, slashed funding by nearly $4 billion and lowered the HECS repayment threshold to only $42,000.
Labor fought for universities after the horror show that was the 2014 budget, and we will do so again. The PM's focus group research told him to keep repeating the word 'fairness'. He needs to do more.
Rotary Oceania Medical Aid for Children
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (16:46): I will speak today about the remarkable achievements of a group which operates in my electorate, Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, and probably in yours too: Rotary Oceania Medical Aid for Children, or ROMAC for short. Operating out of Rotary clubs, ROMAC raises money to help children in trouble across our region. There are many charities and charitable doctors who devote their time to help fix minor medical problems in neighbouring countries. But sometimes a condition is too advanced, too debilitating or too unique to be treated in the local setting. This is where ROMAC steps in, flying the children and their families to Australia and ensuring that they get the world's best care here in our hospitals. They then fly them home and monitor their progress.
This year ROMAC treated 43 children from seven countries. Their new chair, Rob Wilkinson, is a member of one of our local Rotary clubs. To achieve this remarkable feat, they rely on the generosity of Rotary members, who donate money, time and housing for the families. Many hospitals around the country have also chipped in, donating a small amount of bed space, where it can be spared. ROMAC do incredible work, saving lives, promoting Australia and giving families in our region hope for the future. It shows the true heart and generosity of Australians. I am so proud to see the kindness coming out of our local communities. Congratulations to Rob and his team. Thank you for all your hard work.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has now concluded.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Adult Migrant English Program
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (16:48): I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that the Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP):
(a) has been operating since 1948;
(b) aims to promote and support English language skills for new migrants and humanitarian entrants;
(c) is the Government's largest English language program;
(d) provides English language training for new members of the Australian community; and
(e) provides essential life skills for all eligible new migrants and humanitarian entrants;
(2) acknowledges the importance of the AMEP in delivering foundation English language skills to newly arrived migrants and humanitarian entrants to prepare them for work and participation in Australian society; and
(3) notes:
(a) that last year more than 59,000 new migrants and humanitarian entrants benefited from training delivered by the AMEP; and
(b) this Government's ongoing support for the AMEP, in the interests of all Australians.
The English language is the passport to success in this country. Without it, migrants to our country are limited in their choices, limited in their opportunity and limited in their ability to communicate and successfully integrate into our country. The last of my family to come to Australia arrived here from Germany in 1936. Anyone who has travelled to another country where a language other than English is spoken might appreciate just how difficult it is to communicate and complete everyday tasks, but few of us can comprehend the immense hurdle that moving to a foreign country and having to learn a new language presents. The ability to speak English gives people greater independence and increases economic and social participation in the Australian community.
The Adult Migrant English Program—or the AMEP, as I will call it—is the Australian government's largest settlement program, providing up to 510 hours of English language tuition to eligible new migrants and humanitarian entrants to help them learn foundation English language and settlement skills. I acknowledge my friend the member for Cowan, who I know used to be a teacher in the program. The AMEP is available to all eligible visa holders 18 years of age and over who do not have full proficiency in English.
Since its establishment in 1948, the AMEP has helped more than a million new arrivals gain the linguistic skills they need to fully participate in all aspects of Australian life. But this is only one million out of the over 7½ million people who have settled here since the first federal Immigration portfolio was created in 1945. Last year alone, more than 59,000 new migrants benefited from the training delivered by the AMEP. Despite this increase in participation, the 2011 census revealed that there were more than half a million Australians who reported that they could not speak English well, or they could not speak it at all. Of those people, more than a quarter of a million had been here since before 1996, and those figures are probably underestimated. All of this shows that more needs to be done.
My electorate has migrants from China, India, Sri Lanka, Korea, Lebanon, Armenia, Greece, Italy and the Philippines. The 2011 census revealed that there were approximately 3½ thousand people who spoke little or no English in my electorate. This is an issue that disproportionately affects women, with three-fifths of those census respondents with little or no English being women. The social isolation of some Chinese and Indian migrants, particularly in my electorate—particularly older people and stay-at-home mums—is a key issue facing our community.
In 2014, the federal education department reviewed the AMEP and found that the program would benefit from improvements that focused on individual client outcomes, particularly employment and improved community participation. As a result, the government has created two streams of tuition: the pre-employment English stream and the social English stream. Both streams will include mandatory units on Australian laws, culture and values, with specific units for young people under age 24. Mandatory entry and exit assessments and regular assessments every 200 hours of tuition will provide better monitoring of client progress. Teachers will have to have a three-year Australian undergraduate degree and a postgraduate Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages qualification.
The new AMEP model will mean migrants are better supported in their English studies and will provide more choice for how and when and at what pace students can learn. The changes will also assist migrants to achieve the English language requirements under the new citizenship test. At present, only a basic knowledge of English is required for citizenship, and this is not assessed through a standalone test. The proposed citizenship test raises this standard.
The government is providing more than $1.2 billion over the forward estimates to deliver the AMEP at around 250 locations across Australia. TAFE NSW delivers the AMEP at 78 locations, including at the Hornsby campus, in my electorate of Berowra. Eighty to 85 per cent of the students enrolled at the Hornsby campus are of Mandarin Chinese background. Other countries of origin include South Korea, Russia, Thailand, Poland and Iran. As of term 1 in 2017, there were 546 students enrolled. This was an increase of about 25 per cent from the end of 2016.
Sunny Suqin Sun recently moved to Australia from China and is a student at the Hornsby TAFE. Through the AMEP, Sunny has enrolled in a beginner English bilingual class and is learning how to use public transport, ask for directions and make appointments so she can more fully participate in everyday Australian life. She says this method of English is 'a memorable and exciting thing'. She says:
The class is like a family - The teacher makes the class very enjoyable - I feel relaxed and happy.
I will be visiting the Hornsby TAFE in the near future to see this program firsthand. The Adult Migrant English Program will help reduce social isolation, create greater economic opportunities and provide a pathway to citizenship for many in our multicultural communities. I commend the AMEP.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): I call for a seconder of the motion. Is there a seconder?
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (16:54): I am happy to second the motion. I rise in support of the private member's motion on the Adult Migrant English Program, which has been brought for debate here in the Chamber by the member for Berowra. Australia is indeed a very, very diverse society. It is predominantly an English-speaking multicultural country that has relied on successive waves of migration to assist in its nation-building capacity. Migrants from every corner of the world have settled here. They have brought with them their hopes and their aspirations, but they have also brought their cultural and linguistic inheritance and their faiths, making Australia one of the most diverse societies in the world.
Many new migrants come to our country with fluent English, others with functional English and many without any English language at all. Their circumstances of arrival are varied, many coming under the skilled migration program and others under the refugee and humanitarian program. The importance of speaking English for a new migrant can never be underestimated, therefore, as it impacts on their capacity not only to get a job but also to negotiate everyday activities that many of us English speakers take for granted, activities such as answering the telephone, filling in forms, using public transport, being able to communicate with doctors and the police, enrolling their children in schools and speaking with teachers, being able to communicate with shop assistants and in general understanding and communicating with the broader community.
In my own community of Calwell, which has been receiving waves of migration since the Second World War—since the abolition of the white Australia policy and, more recently, under the humanitarian refugee program—English language teaching and training through the AMEP program is an important service, and never more so now given the large number of refugees we are receiving from Syria. All new migrants to a country want to hit the ground running from the moment they get here, and being able to communicate is central to being able to do that.
Knowledge of the English language was recognised as a critical enabler as far back as 1946, but it was in 1948 that the AMEP was established to assist the integration of the mass migration programs of the Curtin and Chifley governments. As the forerunners to multicultural Australia, these nation-building leaders were defined by the vision of Australia's first immigration minister Arthur Calwell. Calwell and his contemporaries understood that the new Australians needed to learn English in order to assist their integration. English language classes, therefore, were made mandatory for new migrants. The program was a six-week English language program delivered in the migrant reception centres of Bonegilla, at first, after which people were placed into jobs. Calwell's new Australians, by and large, have been a success story in our nation-building capacity and the AMEP program has been an important factor in that success.
Today's AMEP program not only continues to be relevant but has an even more critical role to play in helping new migrants' participation with an even greater focus on preparation for employment, because the nature of contemporary employment and opportunities for migrants in Australia has changed immensely. With the decline of manufacturing in this country, which once provided employment opportunities for many migrants in low-skilled jobs and where English in the workplace did not determine whether they got the job or not, today's workforce has become more technologically advanced, automated and innovative in a way that requires a highly skilled workforce, with English being absolutely necessary, even with the process of applying for a job online and having a digital CV.
The AMEP program is central to our world-class settlement service program. We are, in fact, considered world leaders in integrating migrants. Providing access and equity to new migrants is part of an overall democratic society, such as the one in which we live, and learning the English language is an overarching measure for social cohesion of migrants.
Currently, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration is conducting an inquiry into migrant settlement outcomes. One of our terms of reference specifically deals with 'the importance of English language ability on a migrant's, or prospective migrant's, settlement outcome.' As the deputy chair of the committee, I am very excited about this inquiry because it gives the parliament an opportunity to further review our settlement programs and services, especially the AMEP, to see if there are, indeed, any issues and, if so, to make recommendations to address them.
Currently, the AMEP provides 510 hours of English language, with an additional 490 hours added to the program as from 1 July 2017 for those who have shown good progress and attendance records. This stipulation, however, could serve to disadvantage those who cannot, for legitimate reasons, attend classes. Some of the evidence that was submitted to the committee attests to that. Indeed, our recent Melbourne public hearing was conducted at the Good Samaritan primary school in Roxburgh Park, in my electorate. Ms Ban Marco the new— (Time expired)
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (16:59): I would like to rise to support the motion put forward by my good friend the member for Berowra, who is was doing a magnificent job in his own electorate and making a fine contribution to the service of the nation. He has put this motion forward because he understands the importance of Australia's migration program as part of the enduring vision of building this country's future.
Australia's postwar immigration program has been a phenomenal success. We continue to be seen as one of the most attractive liberal democracies in the world for people seeking a new way of life, and we are proud to call so many people new Australians. They come here because of the opportunities that this country provides, the seeking of our way of life, the pursuit of our shared values and the promise of a nation underpinned by the principles of an opportunity society. There are many who wish to share and contribute to our success as a nation, and we must do everything we can to encourage and preserve that unique fortune.
For these people to be able to build on the trajectory of this country and be part of its future success, Australians expect the government to adequately equip new citizens with the ability to thrive and prosper in society. We should want new Australians to make sure that they harness that opportunity for their own success as well as the shared success of this country. New citizens and the government have a shared obligation to remove all barriers to full participation in our wider society, and we should encourage new Australians to understand and embrace the values and ethos of our magnificent country. After all, these values make us the envy of the world.
A common language plays a crucial role in uniting a disparate country. It forms the basis of our shared history and our culture and, more importantly, our future together. The success of the Adult Migrant English Program in educating new Australians is a very important part of uniting Australians in that education. The AMEP provides up to 510 hours of English-language tuition to eligible new Australians and humanitarian entrants. It is a pathway to learn the foundations of the English language alongside settlement skills to enable new Australians to participate socially and economically in our society. Through language tuition, the program aims to produce outcomes in relation to social participation, economic wellbeing and the improvement of people's welfare and, more importantly, independence and personal wellbeing. All of these contribute to settlement within and integration into the Australian broader community. The program also assists new Australians to find pathways to employment.
A recent evaluation found that overall the AMEP is a valuable program that is 'providing substantial assistance to eligible adult migrants and humanitarian entrants'. It offers 'a strong focal point for drawing together a range of humanitarian and other related settlement services'. The work experience component of the AMEP has a higher rate of participation than similar programs, including the Skills for Education and Employment program.
The government, rightly, is actively supporting the continued success of AMEP by revising the business model as part of last year's budget. Some key features of the new business model include providing access to a capped program of 490 hours of additional tuition for clients who have not reached functional English after completing their entitled 510 hours; removing the funding cap applied to the AMEP subprogram, the Special Preparatory Program, allowing entrants to access additional training; and expanding choice and increasing flexibility and innovation in service delivery by allowing providers to choose a curriculum that best meets their clients' needs.
We know that the program has a significant impact on people's lives. A 2011 survey found that more than 50 per cent of participants were well on their way to achieving economic independence by indicating that they would likely buy a house in the next five years. More than one quarter of both migrants and refugees, those seeking a life as new Australians, aspired to start up their own business within the next five years, something that should be utterly celebrated and congratulated, I would hope in a bipartisan way, by everybody in this chamber. A third of participants were actively involved in local community groups, a religious organisation, a community group, a sporting club or a parenting group. Those groups provide the knitting of the social fabric that binds our community together. And 61 per cent of those with children said that their child participated in activities outside school, most commonly in sporting groups.
We acknowledge the fantastic work that AMEP providers deliver to our newest Australians. I wish all 59,000 recent participants in the program the very best going forward.
Dr ALY (Cowan) (17:04): I would like to start by thanking the member for Berowra for bringing this motion to the Federation Chamber. It is indeed a motion that I am very proud to stand up and speak to. I particularly also to thank my colleague for acknowledging that I actually do have a long history with the Adult Migrant English Program. I am a trained TESOL teacher and taught with the Adult Migrant English Program for some years, so I was very keen to come to speak to this particular motion.
It would be remiss of me to stand here and speak to this motion without raising some of the concerns that my colleagues that are still teaching in the Adult Migrant English Program have with regard to the proposed changes to the Adult Migrant English Program and how it is delivered, specifically around the division of the Adult Migrant English Program into two streams: the pre-employment and social English streams. The fundamental flaw with this change, even though we are very supportive—and I, particularly, am very supportive of the changes that are being made to the pre-employment stream—is that it really misinterprets the English language needs of all clients, particularly those with low or no literacy skills.
When I was a teacher at the Adult Migrant English Program, I specialised in teaching clients with low or no literacy skills—clients who came with an ISLPR of zero. ISLPR is the International Standard Language Proficiency Rating, which is used by the Adult Migrant English Program to assess people who are eligible for the program and to put them in the correct English language class for their abilities. I specialised in low or no literacy skills. I had a Master of Education specialising in TESOL as well as several years experience as a TESOL teacher. Those kinds of clients, those with particular needs, require highly skilled teachers. They require somebody who has high skills in teaching English as a second language.
One of the issues that has been raised, particularly in the submission by the Australian Council of TESOL Associations, is that the class sizes for the social skills stream is 25, as opposed to 20, which is what it will be in the pre-employment stream. The other issue is that the social skills stream can be taught by either accredited or non-accredited teachers. In other words, the social stream to be delivered through the AMEP with these changes can be delivered by non-qualified TESOL teachers—people who do not have those qualifications that are required in the TESOL stream specifically to teach people with zero or low literacy skills. As I said, there are specific skills that are required to teach that level. The outcome, therefore, is that it is going to have an adverse impact, particularly on women and on refugees, who tend to come in with much lower literacy skills, and on refugee women in particular, who often are illiterate or have limited literacy in their own language as well.
The ACTA, which, as I mentioned earlier, is the Australian Council of TESOL Associations, made these points in a detailed submission to the AMEP. Dr Michael Michell, the president of the ACTA, said:
Without expert teaching, refugees' and migrants' once-in-a-lifetime English entitlement will be wasted. The best these classes can produce will be stigmatised speakers of 'broken' English on a road to discrimination, unemployment and social isolation.
This downgrading directly contradicts the findings of the Government's most recent review of the AMEP.
One of the other findings with this is that we need to understand that 28 per cent of AMEP clients, which is a vast majority, leave the program with a zero or zero-plus ISLPR. These are the lowest levels of literacy. Only seven per cent leave with an ISLPR of two, which is considered basic proficiency. Even so, an ISLPR of two is way below the necessary requirements that are proposed for the citizenship test, which are an IELTS 6. An IELTS 6 is pretty much academic English; an ISLPR 2 is basic communication skills.
In closing, I would urge the government to reconsider the way that it is approaching the AMEP and recognise the professionalism of the teachers. (Time expired)
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (17:09): It is with much pride that I rise today to discuss the Turnbull government's changes to the Adult Migrant English Program, which aims to promote and support the learning of English language skills through the provision of timely quality English language services. The primary objective of the program is to produce outcomes in relation to social participation, independence, personal and economic wellbeing, all of which contribute to successful settlement into the broader Australian community.
The government announced changes to the AMEP that provide a business model that places greater emphasis on English language proficiency for work, education and participation in the community, to build on our being the most successful multicultural nation on this earth. Two streams of tuition will now be available within a client's 510-hour entitlement: the pre-employment English stream and the social English stream. The nature of the pre-employment stream is to deliver English language tuition in the context of life in Australia, specifically in the workplace, and to provide skills for further education The nature of the social English stream is to deliver English language tuition in a less-formal setting to enable people to independently participate in the community. AMEP providers are based across my electorate of Chisholm—in Box Hill, Chadstone and Oakleigh, which people can readily access.
In Chisholm, over 136 languages are spoken every day, so some would not blink an eye at the following scene that took place in Box Hill, but that, for me, made memories come flooding back. A young child was alternating between speaking Mandarin and English, acting as interpreter for whom I assumed to be her grandmother. The scene took me back to when I was about the same age, in the early 70s. I got on the bus with my grandma, of Greek heritage, and an aggressive overbearing bus driver yelled at her to 'speak English' to tell him our location. Intuitively, my child's voice blurted it out, and I felt relieved and empowered that I had saved the day for my grandma, and, more importantly, I had stopped my grandmas obvious intense anxiety. My maternal grandparents settled in Australia in the 1930, so this event happened well over thirty years on but my grandma still could not speak English . Grandpa could though, as he was the front man for their small business.
This is a typical Australian migrant story that, unfortunately, remains relevant today. Grandma was like many migrant women then and to this day who stay in the home, behind the scenes, and not in situations that compel them to speak or learn English. Consequently they often cannot pursue financial independence, actively participate in the workforce, access services, or learn to drive. Their independence is significantly restrained.
There are many migrants, particularly women, who are likely still in this predicament. Our ageing population necessarily includes an ageing migrant population. Speaking to my constituents in Chisholm, one of the most worrying concerns for them is the isolation felt, particularly by their mothers and grandmothers as their partners have passed away, which is enhanced by the fact that they cannot speak English.
Those on the other side who are struggling to find the negatives in the Turnbull government's new citizenship reforms have their blinkers on and their arguments do not make sense. 'Oh, there are so many people who are Australian citizens now who have made a contribution and who wouldn't have passed the English test. It ain't broke, so don't fix it.' Indeed, it 'ain't broke'. We are the most successful multicultural nation on earth. This is not about fixing something; rather, it is a concept that builds on our liberal democracy, of what would be described in the business world as 'continuous improvement', upon which the Turnbull government is delivering.
These reforms are aligned to a modern Australia. Moreover, in a modern Australia our values do not condone anything that undermines women's equality to men. In certain other countries they do, and they still do: forced marriages, genital mutilation, permission for violence against women.
Part of the beauty and vibrancy of Australia's diversity is that we can freely and openly express our different cultures through different languages, the key source of communication between people. However, speaking English is intrinsically linked to our Australian culture and way of life and therefore a necessary skill. Equal opportunity for men and women is a hallmark of Liberalism and the modern overlay of requiring people to pass an English test is a core element of our citizenship reforms. It aligns to the fact that the ability to speak English is key to integrating into our community and participating in the workforce. It creates independence and enables access to any services.
Disagreeing with change or reform for the political sake of it, as Labor does on a daily basis, does nothing to protect our great nation for future generations. The Turnbull government's strengthening of our citizenship laws are pragmatic and sensible reforms, whilst harnessing the integrity of a multicultural Australia. They convey that to call Australia home, and to be part of our Australian family, one must be able to speak our language, obey our laws and respect our values.
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (17:14): I want to start off by saying that I appreciate the sentiment with the member for Berowra brings with this motion to this chamber, the commitments that he made and the importance he placed on the Adult Migrant English Program in his contribution. I also would like to endorse very strongly the comments of my colleague the member for Cowan on the very great importance of having properly qualified teachers working in these programs. Teaching language literacy and numeracy is actually one of the most demanding teaching tasks. I am a former TAFE teacher myself, and I can assure you that the qualifications and professionalism are significantly important to successful outcomes. So I endorse the contribution by the member for Cowan.
I do want to say that I am a bit sad to be speaking on a negative aspect of this particular debate, but I want to bring before the chamber the situation in my own electorate. Indeed, I am joined by my friend the member for Newcastle, who has a similar situation. I have spoken to the Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills on this, and I thank her for meeting with me about it. On 18 April this year, the assistant minister announced successful tenderers for the new Adult Migrant English Program and the Skills for Education and Employment Program. In my area, TAFE Illawarra, which extends down to the far South Coast, and Hunter TAFE, in my colleague's area, have lost the contract for the AMEP to Navitas English. We learnt last week that Navitas now plans to subcontract that delivery to MAX Solutions, so we have a contract to a subcontractor. Neither of whom have the facilities, teaching staff or anything that is required to deliver the program in place. It is supposed to commence on 1 July and so local students will be forced to move from TAFE to Navitas English, now MAX Solutions, on that date. They have not received any information as yet as to where the new premises will be located or how it is going to operate for them.
Many students in my area—about 40 of them—had gathered very quickly on the day that I was going out to talk to Mr Rob Long from the NSW Teachers Federation about these matters because they were so distressed and angered by the decision that they wanted to talk to me directly. They told me that they have actually taken out rental arrangements—so they have leases in place—and chosen accommodation that allowed them to be close to the TAFE so that they could walk there and make sure they never miss their lessons. They have enrolled their children in the local schools. The TAFE has a childcare centre, and they have younger children enrolled at child care. The TAFE provides many ongoing educational opportunities, and I met students who had done the AMEP and then continued on to do vocational qualifications in aged care and hospitality—all able to be done at that campus.
The TAFE itself, I have been informed, had a AAA rating for their delivery for many, many years of this very Commonwealth contract. I am, like the students and the teachers, completely at a loss as to why you would take the contract off TAFE, who has been delivering it, who has all those facilities in place, who has trained teachers available to do deliver it and who has met all—above and beyond—of its contract requirements to date.
I just want to share with the House the feeling of those students. Iraqi refugee Shvan Zebari spoke to the Illawarra Mercury about this. Mr Zebari said:
"This sign—
which he was holding—
says TAFE is home," … "And that is exactly what TAFE means to me and my family."
… … …
"Both my wife and I are learning English here," …
"I want to go on and become a mechanic. TAFE is the best place for me to continue my studies.
"I rent a house close to TAFE. A lot of other students do also.
"I'm scared of the changes. It is bad for all of us."
Fayda Alzedan told WIN Television: 'When I decided to come here, I wanted to start a new life. I wanted to be active, so language is the most important thing for me, and here I am happy. My language has improved.' Palena Safour, a journalist who fled Syria, said she knows how important language is. She said: 'I want to learn for my kids, for my life and for my future. That is very important—the language.' This is an outrageous decision. It is really short-sighted. I do not know what the government hates about TAFE, but TAFE were doing an excellent job and should have been able to continue doing so. (Time expired)
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (17:19): I thank the member for Berowra for raising this very important topic for debate. The Adult Migrant English Program is an excellent part of our immigration system and one which allows new residents who come to our country to learn our language. It is not, however, a program that is well known in our communities and it is underutilised as a result. I hope this debate will raise more attention to this wonderful system.
The AMEP has been around for nearly 60 years now. It aims to promote and support the learning of English-language skills through the provision of timely and quality English-language services. Of course, it is vital for our communities and our international relations that migrants retain elements of the language and culture from their motherlands. It creates the vibrant communities that are on show in places like Eastwood in my electorate. However, it is undeniable that competency in English increases the chances for social participation, independence, personal and economic wellbeing. All of these contribute to an individual's success for settlement into the broader Australian community.
It is easy to forget how a lack of English proficiency can impact people beyond just holding conversations. Migrants have told me, before they learnt English, how their health suffered because they were intimidated by the booking systems for doctors' appointments. They could not get around because they did not understand road signs or public transport timetables. Lack of English was crippling their wellbeing.
We have a number of local English-language schools in my electorate and all do excellent work in improving the social and employment chances for their students. The Australian Chinese Cultural Association of New South Wales' Chinese-language school, for example, last year celebrated their 40th anniversary. The principal, Dr Phil Xu, runs a vital service and makes a fantastic contribution to our local community, which is evident for all to see.
AMEP is managed by our excellent Meadowbank TAFE campus. It provides 510 hours of English classes, which amounts to nearly 15 weeks of full-time classes. As the motion states, last year more than 59,000 new migrants and humanitarian entrants benefited from training developed by the AMEP. While all clients are seeking to learn or improve their English, many clients are seeking sustainable employment and would benefit from a stronger employment focus in their English-language training and exposure. Others are seeking greater competency in English to help to participate more independently in the local community and region.
Many clients also wish to participate in employment concurrently with AMEP. Recent reforms have therefore divided the hours into two essential streams: the pre-employment English stream and the social English stream. Crucially, the streams can be adjusted so that the system suits those looking for work or those who need to help adjusting into their new social surroundings. Recent changes have made further important updates to the system. Both streams will include mandatory units on Australian laws, culture and values. There will also be specific units for younger people under 24 years of age who have different needs in their use of language to their older counterparts. Importantly, there is now also the facility for up to an additional 490 hours of English tuition where clients have accessed their full entitlement but are yet to achieve functional English. This will ensure that nobody is left behind. We are encouraging greater flexibility and innovation in where and how services are delivered.
Bennelong is very fortunate to be enriched with cultures from around the globe. These communities have had great success in finding a balance between integrating into the Australian way of life and retaining important aspects of the many cultures and thus fusing disparate communities into a unique but strong local identity. Understanding our language is essential to getting a job, receiving services or having a social life. The Adult Migrant English Program is helping thousands of people settle into their new country, and I recommend the program to all new residents of this great nation.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (17:24): Like my colleagues, I thank the member for Berowra for bringing this motion before the House. It is certainly an opportunity for us to speak to the importance of the AMEP. I thank the members on the government benches for acknowledging the importance of this program, but I absolutely share the concerns raised by my colleague the member for Cunningham, who joins us here today and has spoken on this motion as well, about some very serious consequences that are beginning to emerge as a result of recent decisions of the government regarding the contracts as to who will deliver the AMEP in our respective regions.
The Hunter TAFE, in addition to Illawarra TAFE, will no longer have contracts to deliver these programs in our regions, despite an outstanding track record of delivery of these services. Yesterday I celebrated with my community Africa Day. It was the third occasion on which we had celebrated Africa Day in Newcastle. It is a relatively new festival for our region. But it was also the 10th anniversary of the Hunter African Communities Council. At that festival I got to meet with many, many people who have been the beneficiaries and recipients of the AMEP through the Hunter TAFE. I met with TAFE teachers, expert linguists who have been working in the TAFE facilities and a whole range of support staff workers, all of whom expressed their utter dismay at the decision to effectively outsource this program to a private for-profit company.
Originally the contract was awarded to Navitas in Newcastle. I was of the understanding—and this has now been confirmed—that Navitas very quickly batted that contract on to MAX Solutions. I ask the question: did Navitas ever intend to deliver this program? I do not know. They have had a record in Newcastle more recently delivering some of the humanitarian settlement services. I understand they will be removing themselves from that work as well. So it is very unclear what the original intentions were. But it does seem to me that we have a situation where we have a very fine public education institution delivering an outstanding program with tremendous on-site facilities. Like the member for Cunningham said, many of the students in my area have sorted their accommodation arrangements to live close by the facilities or close to public transport. Young mothers participating in this program are very often dropping kids off at Islington Public School, right near the TAFE, and taking their other young children to the on-site creche facility that is available at Hunter TAFE before then going up to their classes which start at nine o'clock. One of the reasons why an on-site creche facility was established at Hunter TAFE was the difficulty women were having in accessing childcare services close by or en route to their classes. It has resulted in enabling so many of those young women to participate and get their 510 hours of tremendous tuition that they require.
Absolutely no-one disputes the importance of being proficient in the English language in order to assist with settlement in Australia. That goes without saying. But it is of great concern to me that we have a situation where we are taking from the public education sector, which has a tremendous track record, and handing it on not just to one but now subletting on to a second private for-profit organisation. I have no doubt that it is those smaller programs in regional communities that are going to suffer. Many of the outreach programs that TAFE has been offering will not be profitable for a for-profit organisation to take on. The men and women in those programs will suffer dearly, and it is a great shame. I ask the government to rethink their strategy and to reverse this decision— (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Schools
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (17:30): I move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the pivotal and vital role that our schools play in preparing our children to be active and contributing citizens;
(2) notes:
(a) that school education is an essential component in providing children with the skills and knowledge they need to reach their full potential, including academic, social and communication skills; and
(b) the important work that schools undertake to ensure that students are prepared for the challenges of further study and working life, especially in new emerging technological and scientific fields;
(3) acknowledges and thanks school leaders, teachers and support staff for their dedication, commitment and professionalism in ensuring not only that every child learns, but is also nurtured and cared for; and
(4) further notes:
(a) that the one factor that makes the biggest difference in a child's learning is the quality of their teachers;
(b) the challenges faced by teachers and support staff in providing individual care and assistance to students who are struggling with various aspects of their school life; and
(c) the need for governments to fully support teachers in this important work.
The greatest and most important investment we can make in the social and economic fabric of our nation is in education. If we want to be a smart nation, an innovative nation, then we have to invest in its foundation, and that foundation is schools and education in the early years and through to middle school and high school, which are so important. We can talk as much as we like about an innovative nation, about innovative technologies, about being a smart nation, but the reality is that if we do not invest in education and schools it is nothing but talk. That is why the previous Labor government, under the guidance of Julia Gillard, undertook the most extensive review of school funding to ensure that funding was based on students' needs and schools' needs. In other words, where there were needs, there would be enough funding to take care of those needs and bring the students up to certain standards.
This government's new school funding policy is a joke. You can try to dress it up any way that you like, you can try to pretend otherwise, you can ties bow on the school package, but the facts expose it for what it is: a $22 billion cut to schools. At the same time we are cutting from schools, you continue wanting to give big business a $65 billion tax cut. What type of government rips money from schools to give it to the multinationals? That is exactly what took place the other night in the budget.
In my state this equates to around $265 million that will be ripped from South Australian schools in the 2018-2019 year. Let's take a look at how much schools in my electorate of Hindmarsh will lose: Edwardstown Primary School, $375,000; Ascot Park Primary School, $135,000; Saint Leonards Primary School, $317,000; Forbes Primary School, $298,000; Cowandilla Primary School—the school that I actually went to—$372,000; Flinders Park Primary School, $285,000; Henley Beach Primary School, $463,000; Lockleys Primary School, $142,000; Plympton Primary School, $311,000; Henley High School, $1.325 million; Thebarton Senior College, $759,000; Plympton International College, $428,000; Lockleys North Primary School, $445,000; Fulham Gardens Primary School, $97,000; Seaton High School, $882,000; Underdale High School, $610,000; Kidman Park Primary School, $432,000; West Beach Primary School, $234,000; Grange Primary School, $670,000; Fulham North Primary School, $440,000; Westport Primary School, $216,000; West Lakes Shore School, $643,000; Torrensville Primary School, $288,000; Warriappendi School, $53,000; and Glenelg Primary School, $676,000. That is just the state schools in Hindmarsh. We are yet to hear what the full impact will be on the nongovernment sector, but we gather it is also likely to be hit pretty hard.
Glenelg Primary School in my electorate has a fantastic principal, Rae Taggart. Under Labor's plan, the school was due to get more than $850,000 in Gonski funding over the next two years. Instead, under the Turnbull government's plan, the school will get only $91,000 in 2018. This is what the principal said: 'The money the school had received had gone into intervention programs, and we have taken children who are struggling with their learning out in small groups and given them the tuition they need.' That is what the principal said. These children will now miss out.
Parents, teachers and schools deserve the truth about what is happening under this government and what they are offering. They certainly deserve better than what this government is offering. We have a Prime Minister that talks about innovative nations and innovative technology, but he is not willing to fund the foundations of it. They certainly deserve better. Labor will restore the $22 billion that this government has cut from the schools, and we will do this because we believe there is nothing better than education. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there a seconder for this motion?
Ms Stanley: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr DRUM (Murray—Chief Nationals Whip) (17:35): The Labor Party is the only group in Australia that continues to think that adding more money to the existing funding arrangements for education, at a rate that is over and above the cost increases that are expected to be in the sector, is somehow or other a cut. They know it is untrue. They know it is deceitful. We all know it is disgraceful that they continue to talk about these monies. Sure, they promised more money, but when doesn't Labor promise more money for every sector in Australian government? When don't they come out and say, 'I don't care how much the coalition is spending. We're going to spend more!' It is just what they do. It is what is in their DNA. Whatever we offer they are always going to outspend us. We understand that. But to stand up and say that there has been a cut is nothing short of deceitful and disgraceful.
We have taken the funding models of the primary schools, the independent schools and the government schools from where they are at the moment and we have put 4.4 per cent, 4.2 per cent, 4.3 per cent and four per cent growth on top of where they are at the moment—$6.6 million and on it goes. There is not one school, except the 19 or so—most of them here in Canberra—that is actually going to have less funding. If the Labor Party wants to install their funding let them come out and say they want to install more money for Canberra schools—that is what they want to do—but they will not. They are too scared. They understand that we have this one right. They understand that we have a fair funding model. They understand that we have a needs based funding model. They understand that the model that we have given them is transparent for the first time ever. It is uniform. They understand that David Gonski is now standing side-by-side with the Prime Minister and the education minister. They understand that what we are doing for the education sector is giving the teachers, students and schools the full respect that they deserve for such a critically important vocation.
I would like also to have a little bit of a special thankyou to the teachers and to the principals, because it is my view that a lot of parents are vacating the space of parenting their children. What they are doing is placing more and more responsibility, and more and more tasks, onto the schools to do some of the basic. The expectation has always been that a lot more of the various roles associated with parenting a child, with raising that child, used to be the sole responsibility of the parent. They would send their kids off to school to be educated. However, what we are finding now is that there are many schools that have to provide a breakfast program and a lunch program. They have to explain to children how to be resilient. They have to explain to children how to handle bullying. There is a whole range of other social problems that are much more than just your basic education that now has to be provided by principals, year-level coordinators, welfare staff and on it goes.
I think that we need to enable principals to be able to do the best job they can, and that means giving them autonomy. It means giving teachers some incentive to be as good as they can possibly be, to create some benchmarks that are going to see teachers continue to strive to be the best teacher that they can be.
I am proud to be part of a government that has developed such a fair and transparent funding model, one that has acknowledged the teaching profession for the critically important vocation that it is. This is not just about recurrent funding and having a very fair recurrent model—we understand exactly now that if you send your kid to a government school the state government is going to provide 80 per cent of the resource funding and the federal government is going to provide 20 per cent. For private schools, flip that over—20 per cent from the states and 80 per cent from the Commonwealth government. Not only that, we also have a very strong Capital Grants Program. Recently, in my electorate of Murray, there was $1 million for St Augustine's College Kyabram, $1 million to Sacred Primary Heart School in Yarrawonga and $700,000 for St Mary of the Angels Secondary College in Nathalia. We have seen $50,000 for digital literacy for primary schools at Lockington, working in conjunction with the primary school at Rochester. To see years 5 and 6 students using their iPads for computer programming of some robots really shows that kids in today's primary schools are taking the technologies that are available to them, and taking them just as second nature. These are some of the important steps that we are taking as a government, and I am very proud to be part of the coalition government when it comes to education.
Mr GILES (Scullin) (17:40): I am so pleased to join in what has been passing for a debate on this important motion put forward by my friend the member for Hindmarsh. I am proud to stand with all my Labor colleagues to give every child in every Australian school every chance of fulfilling their potential in school and in education, because that is what the original Gonski vision was all about. That is a vision that has been fundamentally undermined and now betrayed by this government. This motion highlights the essential choice when it comes not just to schools funding but to Australia's future.
On the Labor side of the parliament, we stand for the future and for investing in our kids and giving them every chance in life. We understand that every child starts school with different advantages and disadvantages, and we need a schools funding mix that accounts for that. That is what the national plan for schools improvement was; that is precisely what this sham is not. There is so much noise from members opposite because they are not interested in this debate. They are fundamentally not interested in our future. We have seen them short-change early years education. They continue to apply bandaids when they need to invest in the best start in life. When it comes to schools funding, they are absent. They have no understanding, no empathy and no vision. The choice is very clear—
Government members interjecting—
Mr GILES: Shouting will not get you anywhere, Member for Goldstein, and I am disappointed that the member for McMillan has been joining in on this. If we pull out the figures, the story becomes clear. Let us talk about the real marker, which is the years 5 and 6 Gonski funding. That is real needs-based funding, not Tony Abbott's $30 billion cut. That cannot be the baseline for a future that is fair. It is no vision for our kids and it is no vision for Australia.
The other thing that I am very disappointed that members opposite are not focusing on in this motion is what is really at the core of the Gonski vision. They try to use David Gonski as some sort of human shield, but they cannot get away from two facts. One was that the core of the report that he was one of the authors of was the reaching of a common student resourcing standard; the other was the Commonwealth paying its share to get there so that every child in every school in every sector received an appropriate standard of school education. That is the vision that has been walked away from.
Underpinning that was our appreciation of vital role of teaching. We understand that teachers are the most important influence in schooling outcomes. By providing resourcing to deliver those other supports that even out the imbalances that the lottery of life delivers to too many of our kids, we were delivering the opportunity for teachers to teach. That is what is being lost.
When I think about my role as a local member and my role as our shadow assistant minister for schools, I think about teachers. I think about the lengths that they go to—too often out of their own pockets—to make sure that kids who have not been looked after in the lottery of life get every opportunity to go to school. That might be about paying for books and uniforms or organising breakfast clubs. As a representative and as a member of the future Shorten Labor government, all I want is to ensure that teachers get to teach.
Government members interjecting—
Mr GILES: Members opposite find this funny, but I really do not find it funny. What we saw in question time today underlines the height of their arrogance and hypocrisy, because we saw the government use disability as a weapon. I ask members opposite who backed in their duplicitous Prime Minister on this in question time to look hard at the bill that we will be debating tomorrow and look how it short-changes students with disability. There is no material before us that safeguards any assurance that the disability loading will be implemented. There is no evidence before us that this government takes students with disability seriously.
In fact, it is clear that under this government every Australian does not count when it comes to school. The government stands condemned for that. It stands condemned for walking away from its unity ticket on schools funding and it stands condemned for not recognising the hard work that our teachers do, and the imperative of us recognising and supporting their work. If they were serious about education they were would do justice to this motion and they would look again at the bill that is before this House.
Mr GEE (Calare) (17:45): It is a pleasure to make a contribution to this debate recognising the important work that teachers carry out in our community. They work tirelessly to ensure that our children are supported and encouraged and grow up to be active and engaged citizens in our local communities. Teachers nurture the promise of tomorrow and it is very fitting that they are recognised in this House. They invest hours in our children's education—they organise excursions, community gardens and all manner of programs.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to just a few of the wonderful programs and some of the great work our teachers are doing in the Calare electorate—just a small sample. Nashdale Public Schools is one of the schools I will highlight tonight. It is located just nine kilometres from Orange. Its teaching staff include Principal Kylie Toberty, Lisa Miller, Samantha Perfect, Elise Dennis, Carly Sutherland, Matt Campbell, Mel Winters and Michelle Wood. Four years ago a small vegetable garden was built for the school, thanks to a generous donation of land from the neighbouring White family. Parents and grandparents come to school and spend time showing the children how to tend the garden and teaching them of the value of seasonal produce. Sandra Shepard is one of the many wonderful grandparents who spend their time helping out with the garden and teaching the students about the importance of recycling. The senior students of Nashdale Public School sell the produce from the vegetable garden at their stall, called 'Nashie-Nosh'. I highly commend it to you, Deputy Speaker. I know that if you were ever in Nashdale you would stop in at 'Nashie-Nosh'. The money raised then goes back into the garden and into local causes.
Cullen Bullen Public School should be commended for their efforts in fundraising, with the help of teachers Jacinta King, Nereash Nicholson and Sarah Thorncraft. In the last week of term one they held their very first colour run. I am told the students had a lot of fun, with activities and a barbecue, put on by the P&C. Cullen Bullen Public School raised more than $700, which is more than any amount raised by previous fundraisers. I congratulate them on their wonderful efforts.
Technology is also a big part of Wollar Public School. Every Tuesday the four students at Wollar Public video conference with a teacher in Beijing to improve their Mandarin language skills. That is quite impressive when you consider the reasonably remote location of Wollar. They started learning how to speak Mandarin in term 2 last year and the video conferencing has allowed Wollar Public School to take part in virtual excursions, through a program called Dart Connections. These virtual excursions started two weeks ago and will soon include a deep dive into the Great Barrier Reef. What a wonderful experience for the students there. They have another excursion organised for later this year, where they will travel to Camp Toukley with Hargraves Public School, Hill End Public school, Lue Public School, and Glen Alice Public School. I would like to give special mention to the teachers at Wollar Public School, including Julie Gale, Kay Bushnell and Kate Field.
Ulan Public School is testament to the many benefits of being a small school. They are great things there. I would like to make mention of Kellie Endacott, Annette Riley and Amanda MacLean. The teaching staff at Ulan have recently welcomed a lending hand and enormous support from the local Wilpinjong Mine. Workers from the mine sought a contractor to build a new chook pen for the school and funded the project. The students at Ulan Public School are now responsible for looking after six chooks. They collect the eggs every day—I am told that this morning collected 11, which was a record!
I would also like to make mention of Anson Street School in Orange. They have adopted a number of very positive strategies and programs with the help of the local community. This term the 133 students at Anson Street School are taking part in the Ripple Kindness Project. As part of this project, the students are provided with a checklist of activities to do at home and school. After reading last week's newsletter, it is evident that the students are carrying out a wide variety of kind acts right across the community.
I would like to make mention of the principal, Melanie Meers, the deputy principal, Rebecca Halls, and the assistant principals, Cathy Hudson, Julie Hudson and Christine Kovac. I would also like to make mention of two special students who represented me at the mid-morning service on Anzac Day this year. They were Ashley Wilson and Olivia Cavalli. They laid the wreath at the cenotaph, and I was very grateful for their assistance. I congratulate all our hardworking teachers right across the Calare electorate and thank them for the wonderful work they are doing.
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (17:50): I rise to speak on the member for Hindmarsh's motion about schools and education and the good things schools are doing in our community. But it would be remiss of me not to also speak of the cuts that this government is making to schools, cuts that will bring to a halt the wonderful work they are doing for our students and our communities.
When I last spoke about this subject in February, schools in Australia were facing a $30 billion cut to funding because the Turnbull-Abbott government had reneged on a deal it had made with the states to pay the final two years of Gonski funding. Now, in its laughable Gonski 2.0 proposal, the government has thrown a few crumbs back to the schools so that cut will no longer be the disgraceful $30 billion but will still be $22 billion. I fail to see how, just because it still has the 'Gonski' label, anyone can celebrate a $22 billion cut to education and our schools.
In Paterson, my electorate, under the government's 'generous' new funding model the 45 schools will collectively lose more than $23 million. It may be as high as $24 million. That is no drop in the ocean. Despite what the government is telling school principals and parents, it is a cut. It is a very real cut. The final two years of Gonski funding had been agreed to by the Turnbull government, agreed to by the states and budgeted for, most importantly, by schools. Now schools will miss out. This is from a government who says its budget is fair and full of opportunity. Is it fair that every school in my electorate of Paterson will receive funding cuts?
Let me tell you about just three schools in my electorate that have done remarkable things with their genuine Gonski funding and three schools that will be among the hardest hit by the fraudulent Gonski 2.0 and these cuts. One is Kurri Kurri High. It is my old school, in fact, and dear to my heart. It has received $244,000 in genuine Gonski funding to date. With that they have employed a full-time teacher to work with Aboriginal students, and writing results have improved by 200 per cent. The employment of two experienced HSC markers and retired teachers to work with every individual HSC student has doubled the number of students who have attained band 5 results in the HSC and led to a 75 per cent reduction in the number of students not completing the HSC. An extra deputy principal has focused on creating world-class teachers who learn from professional development and the latest research. This has led to innovative programs, with year 7 working in hubs to increase their engagement. Kurri Kurri High, which has made such great improvements, will miss out on $1.3 million under these cuts. Imagine what they could do with that. Imagine is all we may ever get to do.
Another school making great leaps and bounds is Rutherford Public School. Rutherford Public, to date, has received $595,000 in genuine Gonski funding and has invested in substantial additional professional learning for teachers. Through employing extra staff, it has set up innovative transition programs for students entering kindergarten and for those moving from year 6 to year 7. They have employed additional literacy and numeracy teachers to help students with those critical skills. They have contracted a speech pathologist to work with teachers in language development. They have employed a community liaison officer to promote school attendance, parent inclusion, and community liaison and engagement. They have funded a gymnastics program, a school band, physical education and student welfare programs.
Unless genuine Gonski funding is fully rolled out, Rutherford Public will miss out on $1.1 million. But that is not the worst of it. Rutherford high school, one of the most disadvantaged schools in my electorate, will lose a staggering $1.8 million in the next two years because this government does not give a hoot about young people and their education. Rutherford high runs fantastic programs, and now these students are going to miss out. Students study business services, construction, hospitality, metals and engineering, primary industries, retail services and sport coaching. These often lead to jobs with their host employer once they have finished school.
We should be talking about education, but we should be talking about properly funded education. This Gonski 2.0 is a joke, and everyone knows it. The original always will be the best.
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (17:56): Chisholm, in Melbourne's east, is the third most culturally diverse electorate in Australia, and it follows that there is a diversity in different school offerings. Ultimately, every child needs quality teachers and schools with the right resources and the right tools and programs in place so that they can succeed. That is exactly what the Turnbull government's $18.6 billion quality schools plan will deliver.
The leadership in principals in Chisholm schools reflects the quality of the teachers. Great leaders know that it is important to rely on the facts and truth—a fundamental core value—not least because of the importance to pass this on to their children and students. Labor's opposition and untruths in relation to the education reforms and people running scare campaigns for the sake of political pointscoring or for trying to get a special deal for their school sector should cease. I know this because these past few weeks I have communicated and met with all the principals of schools across Chisholm and, despite the scare tactics by commentators and Labor, the principals invariably have embraced the Turnbull government's quality schools program. The teachers, parents and, indeed, senior students I have spoken to in Chisholm equally want fact, not fiction. They seek to be, understandably, alert and informed. They know that their school stands to benefit from the increased funding, which is transparent for all to see on the school funding estimator. In fact, their greatest concern is more about the alarmist untruths and misleading commentary made by Labor about the future of their children's education—all of which is counterproductive to the philosophy of Gonski 2.0.
The Turnbull government's education reforms and needs based funding model for schools, as endorsed by David Gonski, are about fairness. We are treating all non-government schools identically, with none of the special deals that Labor dealt out based on background or faith. There are no more Labor generated secret deals. Forty-seven schools, in every sector, in every local community in the electorate of Chisholm will be receiving significant increases in funding because of our needs based funding program. The fact is that every single Catholic school based in Chisholm will see increased funding. The fact is the Catholic schooling system around Australia will receive more than $1.2 billion extra over the next four years and around $3.4 billion extra over the next 10 years.
In relation to systemic arrangements—that is, schools that operate as systems, including the Catholic schooling system around the country—they will still continue to receive their funding as a lump sum funding entitlement, enabling them to redistribute that money across their schools as they see fit. There is no reason, with that scale of additional funding flowing into their schools, that fees need to increase anywhere around the country. If they do, that is a decision for the Catholic education authorities, who are responsible for allocating that lump sum.
The total increase in federal government funding for schools in Chisholm over the next 10 years is $244 million. This is great news for the primary and secondary schools in Chisholm and, indeed, across Australia. There are over 20,000 students in Chisholm who will stand to benefit. Importantly, our increased funding will be tied to reforms that evidence shows make a real difference to supporting our teachers and schools and to improving student outcomes. This is a fair system that is good for students, good for parents and good for teachers.
David Gonski stood alongside the Prime Minister and Minister Birmingham in announcing our $18.6 billion investment in school funding, which entails a comprehensive rewrite of the way school funding occurs so that every school across the country is treated in an equal way, based on their own need and circumstance. The Quality Schools program is realising the vision of David Gonski in a measured and pragmatic way. This government is applying an honest, straightforward and comprehensive outline of the intent behind the recommendations of the Gonski report that was handed down six years ago.
The Turnbull government is delivering a uniform model for school funding, and it is under that uniform model that we are able to invest more into the students who need it most. The Turnbull-Birmingham reforms are sensible, pragmatic and fair. They are based on facts, not fiction. The principals and teachers who I have spoken to quite are justifiably alert to the changes but not alarmed by the rhetoric and emotive baseless language. Most importantly, these reforms are needs based so, regardless of which name, faith or sector is on the school gate, every Aussie kid has the same opportunity.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Israel
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (18:01): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Israel is a legitimate democratic state and ally of Australia;
(b) Australia remains committed to Israel's right to exist in peace and security, and continues to support a peaceful two-state resolution for the Israeli-Palestinian issue;
(c) Australia and Israel have a unique relationship supported by a commitment to the rights and liberty of their citizenry, the rule of law and a pluralist society underpinned by mutual respect;
(d) there is a concerning collapse of the traditional support among Australia's political parties for the path to a peaceful agreement between the State of Israel and the Palestinians for a two-state solution; and
(e) the culture within the Australian Labor Party (ALP) regarding foreign policy is deteriorating, aided by high profile party figures who perpetrate enduring myths about the causes of instability in the Middle East; and
(2) calls on the ALP to:
(a) reject the empty symbolism within the politically correct interpretation of issues in the Middle East; and
(b) condemn senior figures within it who have called for Australia, independent of any agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, to formally recognise a Palestinian state.
I would like to begin this discussion by saying that I wish this motion never needed to be moved. I wish it were not the case, but the tragedy of it is that once upon a time a relatively bipartisan consensus sat between the two major parties about the importance of Israel, our ally and friend, and that we should steadfastly support not only our shared commitment and values with one of the few democracies in the Middle East but also Israel as it seeks to advance our values and take them to the rest of the world. Tragically today, you cannot say that is the case anymore.
There are increasingly large sections within the Australian Labor Party that do not share the same commitment to Israel that exists on this side of the chamber. Of course, Australia's foreign policy should always stem from our shared values. We always welcome the opportunity when the Australian Labor Party and other political parties which represent—shall we call them?—the progressive left of politics stand up and defend our values and our way of life. Unfortunately, that is often missing, but we do like it when it does occur.
We recognise and continue to support our great friend Israel as the unique beacon of liberal democracy in the Middle East. The strength of our relationship with Israel originates from our shared commitments to democracy, liberty, the rule of law and a pluralist society. In all discussions of international conflict, and particularly the Israel-Palestine dispute, we must always follow our moral compass and recognise our support for the state of Israel, its right to defend itself and its right to exist. Having been to Israel on a couple of occasions—including one visit being teargassed by the IDF in the middle of a Bethlehem refugee camp—I recognise that some of the debates are extremely complex. I am not trying to say that there is a one-size-fits-all solution to all issues relating to Israel, but I do think it has to come from a basic understanding of the proposition that we support its right to exist and support its purpose and sense of nationhood, and that is often lacking in so much of the contemporary debate.
A disturbing culture and an empty symbolism of virtue signalling have now developed within the Australian Labor Party. Many senior Labor Party figures now find a common cause and practice to side against our friend in favour of her enemies and those who seek to tear down the country and delegitimise its right to exist. We have people like Kevin Rudd, Bob Carr and Gareth Evans, and particularly the latter two, who have recently called for Australia to recognise a Palestinian state without proper recognition of the violence that has been committed against the state of Israel. It was an extraordinary attention-seeking move to hijack the visit of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And if the deteriorating foreign policy culture of the Australian Labor Party was not enough, the factual inaccuracies used to substantiate their claims were truly dumbfounding.
Mr Rudd's commentary chose to ignore the numerous occasions the Palestinian leadership has thwarted peace offers and he laid blame firmly at Mr Netanyahu's feet. Mr Rudd has continually changed his tune, depending on which group he speaks to—with different and opposing views, depending on whether he is speaking to a Jewish audience or to some other organisation where he seeks to enjoy applause and support. Of course, we also have the continual contributions of Bob Carr, the former foreign minister, who regularly waxes lyrical at criticism of the state of Israel as part of his ongoing public commentary. Let's get the facts straight. It is not true to say Israel will not negotiate and will not compromise. Former Israeli prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert offered virtually everything that could be offered in an independent state on three occasions. Palestinian leaders rejected each and every attempt.
For the sake of Israeli and Palestinian families, a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian issue must not be undermined. Any peace agreement in the Middle East will rely on a change in political culture among Palestinians. I am not suggesting that Israel have acted without fault. But considering they face an IS terror campaign to their south, Hamas at the Gaza border and both IS and al-Qaeda affiliates to the north, Israel are constantly being undermined from different sides. You would think they could turn to a country like Australia and see a bipartisan consensus supporting their right to exist, supporting them in their pursuit of nationhood, not a situation where the parliamentary leadership on the Labor side continues to resist supporting the position of our dear and good friend. The lack of morality and principle on display is truly deplorable. Any astute scholar of international relations knows that unilateral proposals such as those suggested are bound to fail if one party is vehemently against them. I encourage members to support the motion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ): Is there a seconder for this motion?
Mr Hastie: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (18:06): Australia's support for Israel is deep and enduring. It is founded in our shared values as democratic nations and is a bond of true friendship. It is a friendship that goes back to the founding of modern Israel, when Labor's Doc Evatt helped introduce UN resolution 181, and to when, under Labor Prime Minister Ben Chifley, Australia was the first country to cast a vote in favour of creating the modern state of Israel.
Today, the Australian Labor Party's relationship with Israel is built on the same robust base that founded our friendship generations ago: shared democratic values and a common commitment to justice and to the rights, liberty and security of our citizens. Many of my colleagues in both major parties have travelled to Israel and the Palestinian territories to see firsthand the challenges being faced. No friend of Israel will forget that throughout both Operation Cast Lead and Operation Protective Edge prime ministers Rudd and Gillard publicly and unequivocally reaffirmed the right of Israel to defend its citizens against attacks by Hamas, a terrorist organisation that continues to reject Israel's very right to exist. Labor also unequivocally opposes the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions campaign, which seeks to disrupt normal relations with Israel and so only to increase the polarisation that underpins the conflict in the Middle East.
While our national political debate has become increasingly partisan, I take comfort in knowing that on many issues affecting Israel my political opponents in the Liberal Party and I are usually in agreement. This bipartisanship has not always been in place. Of the 15 Jews who have served in the federal parliament since World War II, 12 have been in the Australian Labor Party. This may be referable to a number of historical factors, including Labor's enthusiastic support for the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, while the Liberal Party under Robert Menzies opposed that historic event, and the strong personal and cultural links between the Australian Labor Party, the Histadrut and the great Israeli Labor prime ministers, including David Ben Gurion, Levi Eshkol, Golda Meir and Yitzhak Rabin. However, today both major parties recognise that Australia's interests, as well as the interests of Israelis and Palestinians, are best served by rock-solid, bipartisan support for both peoples, and for the peace process in which they are engaged. I consider it critically important that the two major parties continue to ensure this bipartisanship is maintained.
This motion, by an irresponsible backbencher, is an unfortunate exception to this bipartisanship. The tragic conflict between Israelis and Palestinians and the fraught peace process in which they have been involved for generations are not playthings for Australian politicians desperately seeking to score some cheap political points. There are sufficient divisions already in the Middle East, and no Australian MP should be seeking to import divisions to our parliament. More significantly, the peace process is a matter of life and death for both Israelis and Palestinians, and should never be the subject of cheap political pointscoring here. Labor's position is set out clearly in our national platform. In that guiding document, we unequivocally state:
Labor supports an enduring and just two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based on the right of Israel to live in peace within secure borders internationally recognised and agreed by the parties, and reflecting the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people to also live in peace and security within their own state.
Paul Keating was the Prime Minister of Australia at the time of Prime Minister Rabin's assassination, and he issued a statement which included the following words, as true today as they were back in 1995:
The best way the world can honour Mr Rabin is to push ahead with the work that he began. For Australia's part, we will continue to give our full support to the peace process. Our support for Israel's right to exist in security and safety will remain a guiding principle of our policy.
And it is still our policy in the Australian Labor Party, just as it was then, as stated by Prime Minister Keating. I call on all members of this parliament who respect Israel and the Palestinians and who are genuine in their support for the fragile peace process to put petty politics aside and support those peoples in the spirit of true bipartisanship as Australian politicians united in a rare but noble common purpose.
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (18:11): I thank the member for Goldstein for raising such an important topic for discussion this evening. First, let me say that I, like this government—and, I note, many on the other side of politics, like the member for Isaacs—unequivocally recognise the right of the Jewish people to live in the modern state of Israel. That the Jewish people have a legitimate claim to that land and to the city of Jerusalem is blindingly obvious. It is deeply sown into their history, their religion and their culture.
Recognition of Israel's right to exist is also a fact of modern political history stretching back to the Balfour Declaration in 1917. The Prime Minister recently pointed to Australia's role in that history, noting that we were the first country to vote in favour of the 1947 UN partition resolution, which led to the establishment of Israel in 1948. The land of Israel holds a centrality to the Jewish identity unique among all other peoples and religions. Therefore, it is highly hypocritical for some on the modern Left to insist upon the right of Palestinian statehood yet, in spite of the facts, equivocate over the right of the Jewish people to the land central to their own history, religion and culture.
Israel and Australia share much in common, not least their commitment to democracy and the Western liberal tradition. Indeed, Israel stands unique among the Middle Eastern states for its commitment to open democratic process, free elections, human rights and the equal treatment of women. The numbers from Israel testify to its standing as an advanced democratic society. To take just a few examples, Israel enjoys high levels of employment, with a higher level of female employment than the OECD average. Indeed, in all sectors, there are more female than male graduates from higher education. The fertility rate in Israel sits at 3.0—well above the OECD average of 1.7—and Israeli parents receive full pay compensation for parental leave.
I can personally attest to Israel's commitment to human rights. On a recent trip to Israel, up in the Golan Heights, I visited a hospital as part of a trip that was funded by an Australian-Jewish group, and I can attest to the state of Israel showing mercy and humane treatment to those who would do them harm. They had Syrian fighters who had been brought across the border, and they were being treated right there in an Israeli hospital. I got to speak with them directly and ask them how they got there, and they said it was the IDF that brought them over the border.
In recognising Israel's right to exist, I also recognise Israel's right to self-defence. I think it is true to say that, if countries around Israel did not have weapons, there might be peace. But, if Israel did not have weapons, there would certainly be no Israel. It has been said that Israel is a 'villa in a jungle'—I think that was Ehud Barak—and the former ALP leader, Kim Beazley, said that it has the 'strategic depth of a beachside suburb'. Many adversaries surround it.
It is a real challenge. You have the Iranian axis, with Iran, Hezbollah and the Assad regime, on one side. You have radical Sunni Islamists, most clearly expressed with Islamic State and al-Qaeda, who would do them harm. You have political Islamists in the region, led by the Muslim Brotherhood, who are very active in Egypt, Tunisia, Sudan, Yemen and other places, all of whom would deny Israel statehood. And then you have the Arab states, who are threatened by the first three but certainly are no friend of Israel at the United Nations. So the threat faced by Israel is pervasive and unrelenting.
I was in Sderot, in the south, which is only a kilometre away—maybe two kilometres away—from Gaza. Since 2000, they have had about 12,000 rockets fired into their community, and they live every day under the threat of rockets. I was surprised at how resilient they were, given the stress that that must cause the locals there.
I must say that as Australians we should not allow either side to use victimhood as a strategic weapon. The task before us on both sides of politics and indeed before whoever forms government in the next few years is reconciling those interests: Israeli interests and Palestinian interests. Rather than taking sides, we should be helping both sides work on each other's victory speeches. Of course, wrongs have been committed on both sides, but I think it is fair to say that there is only one voice on the side that opposes Israel that denies the legitimacy of Israel.
The Israel I have observed is a remarkable country that has thrived in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. In a time when it is less safe for Israel than ever, I add my voice among its supporters, and I call on all in this place to work together in upholding its legitimacy and seeking a lasting peace in that region.
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (18:16): 'The time has come for everyone to find the courage to be generous and creative in the service of the common good, the courage to forge a peace which rests on the acknowledgement by all of the right of two states to exist and to live in peace and security within internationally recognised borders.' They are the words of Pope Francis during his visit to the Holy Land in 2014. I believe they reflect much of the views of all those who seek a just resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
My upbringing caused me to know from a young age that Jews have been historically a much-persecuted people; therefore, I find it easy to accept the right of the Jewish state to exist, and I believe that the people of Israel are entitled to live in peace and to protect their way of life. However, I have to say that I have become increasingly concerned about the hostilities in Israel's occupied territories and the lack of progress towards the creation of a Palestinian state. Indeed, I believe that the Palestinians too have a right to exist and enjoy statehood.
In 2014, the Gaza war had a profound impact on me. This was a conflict which saw Israel attempt to suppress the hostile attacks of Hamas, resulting in the deaths of some 1,500 Palestinians, of which 538 were children. Gaza was decimated and critical infrastructure destroyed, along with the housing of more than 100,000 Palestinians. I still find it hard to shake the images of the four young boys playing on the beach at Gaza who were cut down. While I have serious misgivings about the scale of the Israeli response, I am equally disturbed by the fact that civilian sites were used by Hamas to shield the militia, and I deplore the fact that over 30,000 rockets were fired by Hamas, threatening the lives of Israeli citizens. Nevertheless, no fair-minded person could possibly have thought that the response to those attacks at Gaza was proportionate.
With a view to a lasting peace in the region, I recognise the decency of all people, and certainly the international community has long held the expectation of a two-state solution recognising the sovereignty of both Israel and Palestine. Indeed, Benjamin Netanyahu, when he took office in 2009, spoke of his determination to see the two peoples live with amity and mutual respect and indicated that Israel would be ready to support a two-state solution in a future peace agreement.
However, the behaviour of Mr Netanyahu and members of his government in the lead up to the last election caused doubts in the minds of many people. I know that many of those sit opposite. It caused doubt as to whether they were truly going to seek a two-state solution. The international community should be demanding an unequivocal commitment to a two-state solution and also the reinvigoration of the peace process itself. I am aware that, since coming to office in 2009, more than 14,000 homes have been built in the occupied territories. The issue of settlement remains an active one and continues to frustrate the peace process. Clearly, the construction of the settlements must cease.
There can be no doubt that a two-state solution is in the best interest of Israel itself. The consequences of trying to absorb the territories will simply lead either to the end of Israel's democracy, if the Palestinians were denied a vote, or to the end of Israel as a predominantly Jewish state and a haven for Jews escaping persecution. Clearly, a country like Australia, along with many others, could not accept a situation of a population being denied its fundamental democratic rights—surely Israel knows this. It cannot be allowed to be considered as an outcome.
Given the comments by President Netanyahu and senior members of his Likud party to distance themselves in the past from a two-state solution, I believe it falls to countries of good will, such as Australia, who believe in the dignity of all peoples of the region, to become more engaged in the peace process, addressing the need for tangible progress in the creation of a Palestinian state while ensuring the respect and security of the Jewish homeland. I will conclude with the words of Pope Benedict: 'Let the two-state solution become a reality and not simply remain a dream.'
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (18:21): It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on the motion of the member for Goldstein. I associate myself with his comments and with those of the member for Canning. I commend the member for Isaacs and the member for Fowler on the good faith they have shown in this debate.
The points raised by the member for Goldstein in his motion are very true. We know that Israel is a legitimate, democratic state and a good, strong ally of Australia. It is a democratic state, a beacon in an area where democracy is the exception rather than the rule. We know that Australia and Israel have a unique relationship, supported by a commitment to the rights and liberty of their citizens, the rule of law and a pluralist society underpinned by mutual respect. Our ties go back to the Battle of Beersheba. I have been to Israel and I have seen the famous statue that was built there. In fact, the light horse that fought in Beersheba came originally from my electorate of Hughes, down in Remount Park, originally in Holsworthy.
If we are going to discuss Israel, we need to do so in a bipartisan way. The member for Goldstein is right to raise the concern that some members of the Left, particularly in New South Wales, are threatening bipartisan support for the two-state solution in Israel. That is something that I hope we can avoid in this parliament, because if we all want to see the peace process in the Middle East advance, the best way to do that is by contributing what we in Australia can in a bipartisan way.
This debate is very timely. As we speak, the US President, President Trump, is probably a few hours away from arriving in Tel Aviv for his historic visit. President Trump has referred to settling the Israel-Palestine conflict as being the ultimate deal. We know that many have tried to settle it, and many have failed. We can only wish President Trump all the best in his endeavours. The US President gave a speech in Saudi Arabia, recently. He said:
For many centuries the Middle East has been home to Christians, Muslims and Jews living side-by-side. We must practice tolerance and respect for each other once again—and make this region a place where every man and woman, no matter their faith or ethnicity, can enjoy a life of dignity and hope.
In that spirit, after concluding my visit in Riyadh, I will travel to Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and then to the Vatican—visiting many of the holiest places in the three Abrahamic Faiths. If these three faiths can join together in cooperation, then peace in this world is possible—including peace between Israelis and Palestinians. I will be meeting with both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Already we have seen the Israelis, because of President Trump's visit, make some concessions, and they have been reported as making a concession of including increased building permits for Palestinians living in Area C of the West Bank—a part of the West Bank which is under full control of Israel. They have also allowed the opening of the Allenby Bridge, which is a crossing between the West Bank and Jordan, for 24 hours a day and the development of West Bank industrial zones near Jenin.
If we can have good faith from both sides, the Israelis and the Palestinians, in this dispute, if there is a chance that the peace process can be restarted, if it can be kicked off by President Trump, if he can urge the Israelis to restrict their settlements in the West Bank and if he can urge the Palestinians to give some concessions and recognise the legitimacy of the Israeli state, there may be a chance—a chance that we all must pray and hope for—that in the coming years we will see a permanent two-state solution to this conflict. That would be one of the greatest peace dividends that this world could have.
Dr MIKE KELLY (Eden-Monaro) (18:26): I would love this to be a bipartisan issue, and you conducted yourself in that way, Mr Deputy Speaker. But the member for Goldstein chose not to do that, so let's go there. I am willing to stack Labor's record on this issue against the coalition's any day of the week. I could go back a long way, but let's start with Prime Minister Menzies's support for the 1939 white paper where the Jewish state's establishment was actually rejected, and it limited refugees from Nazi Germany to the consequences that we all now well understand. Let's also recall that Menzies's Liberal Party opposed the 1947 partition plan—they called it 'a ridiculous and stupid decision'—which Doc Evatt, as chair of the ad hoc committee, managed to negotiate and navigate through the UN process.
The Liberals also opposed Labor's de jure recognition of Israel. They opposed Labor's establishment of diplomatic relations with Israel. They opposed Labor's efforts to get Israel admitted as a member of the UN—again, work that was accomplished by Doc Evatt as President of the United Nations General Assembly. We could cite Prime Minister Menzies's support for Prime Minister Eden's 1955 proposal, which would have reduced Israel's boundaries from the 1949 armistice lines.
We could also refer to the coalition members who have been aired views in much more strident terms than members of the current parliamentary Labor Party. These include the member for Reid, the member for Farrer, the former Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer and the former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. In fact, the member for Reid stated and asserted 'the issues that we as a globe confront today' can be traced back to the creation of the state of Israel. He also said of the two-state solution:
I believe this is used as a line to hide behind; it does not get past that.
The member for Farrer, of course, has often pushed for unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state. In a democracy, Member for Goldstein, people will hold and express different views. I thought that was something you supported.
I am quite happy to also refer to Labor's record in government in its relations with Israel in our last term. As a member of the Defence portfolio, I was proud be involved in the establishment of Plasan's involvement with Thales in the great success story which was the Hawkei light tactical vehicle. During the Afghanistan conflict we also acquired the Heron UAVs, which I know were of great support to the member for Canning's efforts in that country. It was our contract with Elbit Systems that managed to establish the introduction of their battlefield management system into the Australian Defence Force. Our ties with Israel to establish counter-improvised-explosive-device work are deep and continuing. It even extended to acquiring Israeli combat badges and helmets during that time, and, of course, continuing to acquire Typhoon weapons systems for our naval vessels. So our involvement with Israel during that time was deep, meaningful and sustained.
But if we want to compare politics on this we should refer to the member for Goldstein's own attacks on section 18C, a matter of deep and abiding concern to the Australian Jewish community, just as many ethnic communities have voiced their concerns. That provision of that act has been the sole defence line against those in this country who would deny the holocaust, having been used on occasion to defend the Jewish community against those outrageous assertions, claims and attacks on a matter of great sensitivity to Jews. And, of course, virulent anti-Semitic attacks are protected by the provision of 18C, which the member for Goldstein wishes to remove.
Let us also refer to the foreign minister, Julie Bishop, whose efforts have been consistent in adopting a sycophantic policy towards Iran, simply too obviously resolve outstanding asylum seeker issues, which are matters that also have been of great concern to the Jewish community. That involvement with Iran saw an embarrassing episode where the foreign minister attended a conference of coalition nations, at which she tried to advance the cause of Iran being involved in those coalition conferences and involved in the exchange of internal intelligence, which was of course rejected by the other participants at that coalition conference. So, if we want to get into that, we can do it.
But let's not. Let's adopt the approach that you demonstrated, Mr Deputy Speaker, and get back to the situation of a bipartisan approach to this issue, because Labor fully endorses Israel's right to exist and to live peacefully within secure borders. There has been no change and there will be no change from that policy. We also continue to fully subscribe to the two-state solution, as does the government. How about you, Member for Goldstein, add something useful to this debate, such as how we might move forward on achieving the two-state solution, rather than playing cheap politics.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (18:32): It is interesting that the member for Eden-Monaro came here to speak on a unity ticket but had his speech all ready to go slanging off at those on this side of the chamber. It is very interesting.
In March this year I had the opportunity, along with some parliamentary colleagues, to travel to Israel and speak to some of the people there for myself. I would like to begin by thanking the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council for giving us this remarkable insight into Israeli culture and political affairs. For over 3,000 documented years, the Jews have had an indefatigable connection with the land of Judea, the 'promised land'. The phrase that traditionally ends the Seder at the Passover, repeated by Jews all over the world, is 'next year in Jerusalem'. Having travelled to Israel I now understand the significance of that plea and what it means to the 14 million Jews scattered the world over.
Life is difficult for those who uproot their businesses and families to re-join their ancestral homeland. They face a nation with an uncertain geo-political future, with neighbours on every side who refuse to accept its inhabitants' right to exist. Take, for example, the story of Joe Krycer, who came to Israel in recent years from my own birthplace of Caulfield, Melbourne. I met him in a small city named Sderot, which is less than one mile from Gaza. We made our way up three flights of stairs in the fortified main school building to learn that since 2001 Hamas had launched 30,000 rockets and mortars into the town, killing around 15 people and wounding countless more. There is an air raid shelter every 100 meters along the roadways and the apprehension and tenseness of its people was quite palpable. Understandably, PTSD is a real problem for the town's inhabitants.
So why is it that the inhabitants of Sderot would choose to stay there? Why would developers be building new homes and shopping centres in a town that has seen constant threats and destruction?
Why would Joe Krycer leave the peace of Melbourne to live in such a town? The answer, as I have begun to understand it, although clearly not fully, is the love of and deep affinity with their ancestral homeland. It is that deep unquenchable desire to return to the place of their ancestors that makes people the world over want to return to the Promised Land. Prior to my travels I had often heard about the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights, but I had never heard of the town of Sderot. I will never forget its lasting impression, which is not one of fear but rather one of resilience and resoluteness.
If I am to describe the Israelis in two words it would be those, resilient and resolute. From a very young age, Israelis are taught that not only is it okay to fail but if they are not failing they are not stretching the bounds of human endeavour. There are many lessons that we Australians in business and politics can learn from such an approach.
Thankfully, not since the Second World War has Australia faced the constant threat of attack by its neighbours, a threat which Israelis have faced since the war of independence in 1947. Australians have not had to deal with the loss and grief associated with the annihilation of six million of their country folk. It is both this historical and current day adversity which seems to forge the Israeli spirit, young and old alike. Once again, many in our own society could benefit from displaying more of this fortitude.
The fact that Israel is the only democracy in its region also stood out. We were fortunate enough to gain entry to the Knesset and sit in on a session of the Israeli parliament. Israel continues to be a beacon of light in a region of failed states and dictatorships which are harsh on their own people and their enemies alike. Israel is a democracy which is founded on the freedoms of speech, political affiliation, personal property and, that favourite of members opposite, the freedom to strike and demonstrate. I thank the chamber for the opportunity to tell the chamber about some of my dealings in my recent trip to Israel. I voice my desire to support wholly the people and the government of Israel.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (18:37): This morning I highlighted the bog ignorance of the Liberals when it comes to Australian history when I discussed their lack of respect for Sir Robert Menzies's legacy and vision for our nation's great capital, the city of Canberra. This motion underscores that bog ignorance. As my colleague the member for Eden-Monaro has just said, those opposite are all about cheap politics and nasty politics. I remind the member for Goldstein that it was under Labor that Australia played an important role in supporting resolution 181, which helped to bring into existence the modern state of Israel. And it was under Labor's leadership that Australia then welcomed that new state as a member state of the United Nations. It was under Labor Prime Minister Chifley that Doc Evatt's strong support for a two-state solution was reinforced when he cabled Britain's Prime Minister Attlee and urged early recognition of Israel saying:
Such declaration would properly indicate willingness to agree in principle to the recognition of the Provisional Government of Israel, and at the same time willingness to recognize de facto the Arab authorities in actual control of Arab Sections of Palestine.
On Anzac Day I attended an evening service at the National Jewish Memorial Centre in Forrest. The service, which is now in its second year, acknowledges and remembers the contribution and ultimate sacrifice of the thousands of Jewish Australians who served in the First World War and other wars.
Over 7,000 Jews have fought in Australia's conflicts, including more than 330 who gave their lives. This year, Canberra's Jewish community honoured the most well-known, Sir John Monash, the commander of the Australian Corps, who was knighted on the battlefield by King George V for his role in the Battle of Hamel. He was one of Australia's first national heroes. He was a man of modern values who lived by the courage of his convictions and his own view of the big picture. His values are a legacy that endures 100 years on.
At the service, I also learned of Sir John Monash's wife, who came from a family that had been prominent in Goulburn's Jewish community. I found out all about Goulburn's Jewish community. My colleague and I were discussing the depth and history of that community. In the 19th century, Goulburn was a multicultural city ahead of its time, boasting the third largest Jewish population in New South Wales. Over 150 years on, the Jewish community in Goulburn has significantly dwindled. Most Jewish families left Goulburn in the late 1800s in search of the type of job opportunities offered only in larger cities. Today, Goulburn's Jewish cemetery is one of the only reminders of the once prominent community. I am looking forward to making a drive out to Goulburn soon to take a look at the history of the Jewish cemetery, joining members of Canberra's Jewish community here who have connections with the many prominent families of Goulburn of that day: the Yates family, who were formerly the Goetz family, and the Alexanders—a number of very prominent families that still have a connection to Canberra and Goulburn. I was just hearing from my colleague about how the connections still linger. The cemetery, unfortunately, has fallen into disrepair since World War II. It was restored and reconsecrated in 1987. I am looking forward to going back there with the members of the Canberra Jewish community to look at that cemetery.
Later this year, I will also have the great honour of attending commemorations for the 100th anniversary of the 4th Australian Light Horse Brigade charge at Beersheba on 31 October. On that day, the attack was carried out by the XX Corp on the west and Desert Mounted Corps on the east. That evening, the 4th Australian Light Horse Brigade charged over the Turkish trenches into the town. I will visit the Commonwealth War Graves cemetery in Beersheba, which I have been to before. I will again pay my respects to those Australians who unfortunately did not return home, those who made the ultimate sacrifice.
In closing, I reiterate Labor's commitment to the pursuit of peace and stability throughout the Middle East, and Labor's support of an enduring and just two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based on the right of Israel to live in peace within secure borders internationally recognised and agreed by the parties, and reflecting the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people to also live in peace and security within their state. Let us strive in a bipartisan way for that end.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hastie ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Asylum Seekers
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (18:42): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) according to the UNHCR, the number of displaced people fleeing from war, conflict or persecution is the highest since World War II, and includes around half a million refugees and asylum seekers in South East Asia;
(b) the increase in the number of people seeking asylum in recent years and the decrease in the number of third country resettlement places being offered in 2017 means that refugees face waiting more than a decade before they are able to safely restart their lives;
(c) during the Leaders' Summit on Refugees and Migrants at the United Nations in New York City in 2016, the Canadian Government, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the Open Society Foundations launched a joint initiative to increase the private sponsorship of refugee resettlement around the world;
(d) since the late 1970s, the Canadian Government has facilitated the resettlement of more than 275,000 refugees through private sponsorship by individuals, community groups and private sector organisations; and
(e) the previous Australian Government initiated a community sponsorship program in Australia in 2012 and the current Australian Government committed to making this program permanent during the Leaders' Summit on Refugees and Migrants; and
(2) calls on Australian governments, businesses and community organisations to explore ways to use private sponsorship to expand the resettlement of refugees in Australia through formal channels.
The international refugee crisis is the defining humanitarian issue of our time. It is a challenge that Australia has all too often failed to rise to. According to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, there are currently around 65 million displaced people around the world fleeing from war, conflict and persecution—the most since World War II. There are around half a million refugees and many more displaced people in our own region. It is not an easy issue from a policy or a moral perspective.
The problem raises difficult choices with uncertain consequences. People of good faith can and will disagree about the best role Australia can play in response to this humanitarian crisis. While it may not often feel like it in the day-to-day political clamour, there are areas of agreement within the community, civil society and even this parliament about the role that Australia should play. I believe that we can build out from these areas of consensus in this country to increase the positive impact that Australia can have on the international refugee crisis. In this vein, I want to thank the member for Mallee for agreeing to second this motion, and the member for McMillan for agreeing to speak on it today.
One area of consensus on this issue is the importance of humanitarian resettlement of refugees formally registered with the UNHCR to Australia. The importance of resettlement has grown significantly in recent times, as the total number of refugees for whom third country resettlement is the only possible durable solution has increased dramatically, while at the same time the total number of third country resettlement places is set to fall significantly as a result of the Trump administration's decision to cut the total number of people that the United States settles by more than half, from 110,000 per year to a maximum of 50,000. I recently travelled through Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Myanmar—with Save the Children, but at my own expense—to learn more about the refugee experience in our region. I heard over and over again during that trip what impact these trends have had on the pathways confronting people seeking asylum. A 10-year wait for a durable solution is not unusual, and the less vulnerable amongst these people—men without families, without women and children—can expect a much longer wait.
Australia's humanitarian resettlement quota has fluctuated in recent years. It is encouraging to see it begin to increase again, after the Abbott government's decision to reduce the humanitarian program to 13,750 in 2014. Labor's policy at the last election proposed increasing the humanitarian program to 27,000 a year. I note that the Turnbull government has proposed increasing the humanitarian program to 16,250 visas in 2017-18 and 18,750 visas in 2018-19. However, both sides of politics recognise that there is a cost to the Commonwealth budget of increasing the quota in this way.
Australia invests substantially in arrivals under the humanitarian program, both in visa processing costs and in settlement services, and this is appropriate. Increasing the humanitarian program through these channels would cost the Commonwealth budget hundreds of millions of dollars. In contrast, community or private sponsorship of the resettlement of refugees in Australia offers an alternative pathway to resettlement that offers the potential to avoid this constraint. Community or private sponsorship programs allow non-government actors—businesses, religious organisations, community groups and individuals—to meet the costs of visa applications and resettlement services for refugees, either via direct financial contributions or the provision of in-kind goods and services.
The Gillard government initiated a community sponsorship pilot in Australia, capped at 500 places in 2012. While imperfectly designed, the department of immigration concluded that it 'could provide an additional resettlement pathway'. In September 2016 the Turnbull government committed to making the program permanent and increasing the intake to 1,000 within the existing refugee resettlement quota, as part of then President Obama's refugee summit in New York.
We do need to exercise care in this regard. Community sponsorship should not be used as a substitute for government sponsorship. This would introduce discrimination in favour of refugees with connections to those with means relative to those without in our humanitarian program. However, this pathway to resettlement that Australia has taken tentative steps down in recent years holds great potential for expanding resettlement through formal channels. Indeed, Canada has had a private sponsorship of refugees program since 1978, which has resettled well over 200,000 refugees over and above those resettled with government funding.
During the United Nations Summit for Refugees and Migrants in New York last year, the UNHCR, the government of Canada and the Open Society Foundations launched a joint initiative to increase private sponsorship of refugees around the world. In this regard, I call on Australian civil society to join in this international effort to seek to build consensus across the political spectrum and across the business and community sectors for the use of community private sponsorship to expand the resettlement of refugees in Australia through formal channels. Perhaps the Australian community can do a better job at this task than those of us in this parliament.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hastie ): Is there a seconder?
Mr Khalil: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (18:48): There are many good people in this chamber who want to talk about this important topic. I have recently been reading a book by Laurence Rees about the Holocaust. How did the Holocaust happen? How did an elected government bring in a policy that ultimately led to the destruction of millions of people around the world? That book talks about dealing with refugees in the 1930s. The Western world—nations such as America and Great Britain—that should have done more failed to do more simply because they had not taken their populations along on the journey. One thing we as political leaders have to do is take our populations along on the journey. My contribution to this discussion tonight will be about a small community that has taken its population along on the journey so that refugees can be seen as a benefit, not as a sheer cost.
There is a small town in the electorate of Mallee called Nhill. It is a beautiful small town. They could not get people to work in Luv-a-Duck, to expand their employment opportunities. The kindergarten was nearly shut down and the school was not full. A guy by the name of John Millington, who was a compassionate man, with the assistance of his wife, began to look at how we could sponsor and bring refugees in to fill a labour force. But it has turned out to be so much more than that. It has turned out to be something that has not only brought a labour force into the town but changed the culture of the town and opened the hearts of the people in the town. There has been a recent report that it has also contributed $41 million to the economic activity of a town of about 3,000 people. It is extraordinary. The school is now full and the kindergarten is now full. It is very hard to find a house, and in fact there are new houses being built in this town.
But there were some things that needed to be done. There needed to be strong leadership in the host community. You had to think about these people as not just a workforce, because if you are bringing a male in you have to bring their family in. They have to have a sense of family, so you have to think about how it is done. There had to be people in that community who could integrate people. A small example is that, when they would arrive at Melbourne airport, they would see yellow taxis. The police force who had been killing them overseas drove yellow cars, so they had instant fear from seeing a yellow taxi because they thought their lives were at risk.
An honourable member: It probably was, being in a taxi!
Mr BROAD: Maybe it was, getting into a taxi in Melbourne! They needed someone to help them integrate. There needed to be some initial accommodation for new arrivals, there needed to be support for new families, there needed to be some management of the degree of cultural adjustment and there also needed to be the potential for the community to embrace them, and it has actually worked. I say to people who are a little apprehensive about Australia taking in more refugees that it is really about what services we are going to provide, what communities we are going to put people in and how we are going to get them integrated into our community. I think, if we think of it with that perspective and we put that work around it, we can actually do this.
This private member's motion, which I was very happy to have Tim come and suggest to me, is really about private industries and private communities saying, 'How can we play an active role in bringing people out of these camps?' These are beautiful people. The Karen refugees are very dear to my heart. There are still 140,000 in the refugee camps on the Thai-Burma border. When I went there they gave me a big Karen outfit. They told me it is what they give people who are of significance and power, but I am not sure. It could be the outfit they give to someone who is the court jester. They could have been having a bit of fun with me—we laugh a lot.
It has brought so much to the community. I am so proud of humble country folk who are being part of the solution, not part of the problem. They are saying, 'Come to our town and settle here.' We can replicate this in many towns across Australia, and it will bring so much good. I reckon private sponsoring really needs a push along so that we can bring people from those camps, integrate them into our communities and lift those communities, not just for the economic activity but also for the sense of worth, purpose and soul that this brings to our town.
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (18:53): I am also very pleased to speak on this motion put by the member for Gellibrand, my friend, and the member for Mallee. It relates to an issue that is close to my heart, because my parents came to Australia from Egypt 47 years ago. They escaped a region where conflict was the norm and opportunities were very limited. We know that the most recent report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the statistical yearbook, states that there are some 65 million forcibly displaced people around the globe. That includes around 21.3 million refugees in UNHCR camps. Half of that number are under the age of 18. Global numbers of displaced people have trebled since World War II, and the global community must confront what I think is the reality: that we are in the midst of a global humanitarian crisis. The UNHCR validates this assertion by noting that the number of displaced people fleeing from war, conflict or persecution is at present the highest since World War II. This includes in our region around half a million refugees and asylum seekers just in South-East Asia.
I have said previously in this place, including in my first speech here, that Australia must put aside partisan politics to work to find sustainable and compassionate solutions for the international refugee crisis, so I am heartened by the bipartisan support for this motion that has been put by the member for Gellibrand. Australian governments, businesses and community organisations exploring ways to provide private sponsorship and expand the resettlement of refugees in Australia through formal channels is a very good idea. Community or private sponsorship programs would allow non-government entities such as businesses, religious organisations, community groups and individuals to meet the costs of visa applications and resettlement services for refugees, either via direct financial contributions or the provision of in-kind goods and services. It is one creative and compelling initiative that can help tackle the global crisis which I have mentioned. I note, as previous speakers have, that Canada is a very good example of this model being successfully employed. Since 1978 it has resulted in Canada successfully settling more than 275,000 people over and above those resettled through government funding.
This motion also acknowledges the efforts of the UNHCR and the Open Society Foundations to advance this model in many other nations. During the United Nations Summit for Refugees and Migrants in New York last year, the UNHCR, the government of Canada and the Open Society Foundations launched a joint initiative to increase private sponsorship of refugees around the world. Business and civil society groups, I understand, will be campaigning for this objective in Australia and around the world over the next 12 months. It is a good cause and a good initiative.
In the past I have expressed a desire for Australia to take a leadership role in brokering a multilateral solution for the 21 million refugees in UNHCR camps worldwide. I have talked about an international agreement between 10, 15 or 20 countries to take an additional 30,000, 40,000 or 50,000 refugees a year, which would start to be a real solution, resulting in half a million to a million refugees being resettled to a safe haven each year. We can only do this with an international framework that involves multiple countries. This particular initiative of private and community sponsorship is just one such way that Australia can have a positive impact on the challenges the international community faces with this humanitarian crisis.
I note the previous Labor government commenced a community sponsorship pilot program in 2012, and I note that this government committed to making the program permanent as part of US President Obama's refugee summit last year. That was a very good initiative by both the past Labor government and the present coalition government. The current program is capped at 1,000 places within our current intake quota. Australia certainly cannot solve the global humanitarian crisis on its own. It cannot solve the international refugee problem on its own. But it is important that we play our part by meeting our obligations as a good global citizen. I think together multiple nations can do their part to have a positive impact on the situation that we are all facing. So I will take this opportunity to once again state that we as a nation can and must do more when it comes to the global humanitarian and refugee crisis which is upon us. Every action we take will have an impact, and this initiative, I believe, will ensure it is a positive impact. Of course, what will flow from that is the potential to save lives. Every life saved is a victory.
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (18:58): I would be a hypocrite if I did not say that Ann Jones from Maryknoll rang me today. She is not happy with the way this nation is treating its asylum seekers, especially those on Manus and Nauru. She shares that with a lot of people. I have to say to you here, very sincerely, that it is up to this parliament to give the Prime Minister and the opposition leader the best shot they can possibly have to resolve the situation of the dilemma we face today for the Australian people.
I want to mention the member for Gellibrand and thank him for bringing this forward. I will name him so that the public listening to this know that the member for Gellibrand is Tim Watts, a Labor member. What he has put out is a clarion call for compassion, conscience and common sense. What we can actually do here in this moment is look at what other countries have done in the first instance about bringing people in, whether it be 500 more or, as in Canada's case, 275,000 over and above quota.
Canada has 36 million people. We have 24.6 million people. They have brought in 275,000 over and above their quota. Under Tony Abbott, it was 13,750, commendable; for Shorten, the desire was 27,000; and Turnbull had 16,250 but 'I'll up you to 18,750'. The difficulty is that it is a tiny drop in the bucket for those just in our own region. In our region, we have five times the number of people who go to the grand final and some home-and-away games waiting off our shores. I know we cannot take them all; I am not even dreaming about taking them all. But what we can do is say, 'Righto, where a community wants to sponsor families or individuals, we could make it easier for them to do that.'
There was a pilot program under the Gillard-Rudd government and that has been followed through by the Turnbull government. It is all positive, but it is 500 people. That is terrific but there are more people who go through the pie stand at the MCG in about 20 minutes than that. We are a better country than that. We have talked about our values and the way we approach this world. We have a view of ourselves as the fair go country, as the country that really makes a difference to its populace by saying, 'No, no, no. It doesn't matter if it is education or the law—any area of life—we're going to make sure that you get a fair go.' My dad always said to me, 'Give them a fair go.' Fairness is in our DNA, but we do not carry that through internationally in the way that I believe we should. I cannot stand here and say, 'Well, I can't say this because my party will be upset with me,' because this is about relationships.
What the member for Gellibrand has put forward is this: you bring a group of people into a community that has sponsored it and so they have skin in the game. They want a desired outcome because they have sponsored it; it has cost them money. They want an outcome from those people, but what it causes within that community—which the member for Mallee raised without actually saying it—is that it enhances the relationships between the refugee and the broader community. It is not a matter of integrating them into the community; they are already there because they have skin in the game. You have to make it work because we have committed ourselves to this. These are the important things that this type of program which the member for Gellibrand has raised with us for our discussion tonight.
I do not know what it would be like to be displaced and to be on my own tonight, but I would like to think there is some Australian somewhere with, as Tim Watts said, a community or private sponsorship program to allow non-government actors like business or religious organisations or community groups and individuals to meet the costs of that visa application. I am really sorry that I am out of time, because this can be an important program that everybody can get value from. You can actually feel good about something we are doing together as a nation. I commend the member for Gellibrand for bringing it to the attention of the parliament.
Mr FEENEY (Batman) (19:03): Can I thank my colleague and the member for Gellibrand Tim Watts. I am also proud to be in the company tonight of both the member for Macmillan and my neighbour the member for Wills. I thank them for bringing forward this important motion in support of community sponsorship for refugees.
The former Labor government initiated a pilot community sponsorship program for 500 places in 2012 and under the program individuals, businesses and community organisations were able to sponsor applicants within the Australian refugee and humanitarian program. These sponsors covered the cost of visa requirements and the provision of practical resettlement assistance. By involving community organisations from the applicant stage, and particularly in the practical resettlement stage, we were able to leverage the substantial community capacity that exists within Australia. The program was not without its flaws, in particular around its ad hoc nature and the heavy reliance on approved proposing organisations to work with families and sponsors to facilitate the process. However, the program was extremely popular with the response to its introduction vastly exceeding available places. In addition, a 2015 department of immigration review of the pilot was largely positive, finding the program could provide an additional resettlement pathway. The initial evidence showed that there were higher and faster grant rates for humanitarian visas under this program.
I am pleased that the Turnbull government committed to making this program permanent during President Obama's refugee summit in New York in September of last year. They also committed to increased the intake to 1,000. While in and of themselves these are commendable actions, I am disappointed and concerned that the increase, and the commitment itself, exists only within the current resettlement quota. By operating this program within the existing quota, all of us miss a key opportunity to make a difference. I believe we undermine the very purpose of community sponsorship, which is to expand our humanitarian intake and to do so without burdening taxpayers.
Instead, by including any community sponsorship program in the existing quota, the Turnbull government's current program is pushing the cost and the responsibility for resettling refugees onto the private sector. That is not good enough, because ultimately that is about cost shifting and not compassion. I believe we can and should do better by making community sponsorship an expanded part of Australia's humanitarian policy package and by making it an addition to, rather than including it within, our existing humanitarian intake.
Canada provides a real example of the positive role community sponsorship can play, with over a quarter of a million refugees processed through a similar program. Importantly, Canada's program supplements the government intake scheme.
There are currently an estimated 65 million displaced people globally, with the UNHCR estimating that more than 1.1 million are in need of permanent resettlement. Australia can and should do more to provide leadership in our region and to make sure we bring more refugees to Australia safely by increasing our contribution to the UNHCR, placing Australia within the top five global contributors; by restoring the 1951 Refugee Convention to the Migration Act, reversing the Abbott government's attempts to undermine international law; by building a regional humanitarian framework in our region through real leadership, including advocating for the rights of refugees in transit countries; by protecting the interests of children by introducing an independent children's advocate; and by creating a safe, humane environment in immigration processing through faster processing, independent oversight, transparency and third-party resettlement.
I am proud that Labor has committed to increasing our annual humanitarian intake to 27,000, almost doubling the current number reached under this government of only 13,750. Community sponsorship can offer an alternative pathway for resettlement. It is another way for more refugees to come to Australia, to come safety and to come in a way that does not overly burden the Australian taxpayer. By way of example, in my own community, I have encountered many Middle Eastern Christian communities, in particular, who are deeply anxious about the fate of relatives and coreligionists in Syria and Iraq. The Melkite congregation in Fairfield, led by Father Samir, and the congregation of Saint George's orthodox cathedral in Fairfield, led by Reverend Father George Nassir and the secretary George Ibrahim, are already doing all they can to bring refugees to Australia to resettle them. For instance, in the case of the cathedral, there are families living there and getting support from that community. Those communities, those people and their passion can be put to greater use, and this can be done in a way that makes a positive contribution.
I commend this motion. I commend the member for Gellibrand for bringing it forward. I hope to see a sponsorship program that is additional to our intake and that forms an important part of Australia's humanitarian framework.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the next day of sitting.
Telecommunications
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Deputy Nationals Whip) (19:09): I move:
That this House notes:
(1) the Government's $220 million commitment to fixing mobile phone blackspots in regional Australia;
(2) that rounds 1 and 2 of the Mobile Black Spot Program have led to many positive outcomes for regional and remote Australians through the rollout of 765 towers; and
(3) that when in Government, Labor failed to set aside appropriate funds to help improve mobile phone coverage in regional and remote Australia.
In this day and age, most people in urban Australia take it for granted that you can use your mobile phone to do almost anything—ordering the groceries, doing the business payroll, ordering a taxi and sometimes even making a phone call. Australians living in major cities and towns would be lost without their handheld devices. People in regional and remote Australia have had to contend with modernisation without the tools to help them.
Mobile connectivity is a critical part of daily social and business interaction, and it is vital for personal safety. But it was never afforded the time of day by the Labor government. Balancing commercial viability with service necessity is an ongoing challenge for infrastructure investment in regional Australia. Labor buried their heads in the sand, and the coalition is fixing the problem.
Until the coalition came into power, mobile phone connectivity was sorely neglected. Over $200 million has been committed to fix this inequity. We invested an additional $60 million to cover black-spot locations that have not received funding, including locations overlooked by mobile network operators because they were uncommercial. In fact, we have been so determined to address the issue that the funds committed in current rounds have exhausted construction capacity. It will take around two years for current construction to be completed on these towers, and my government will continue to support ongoing rollout.
Let us look at the figures under the coalition: 4,400 black spots are being covered; 765 phone towers are being delivered; and there are 83,300 kilometres of new handheld coverage. Under Labor: zero, zero, and zero. Labor say they are all for helping the vulnerable, yet they fail to deliver or budget for anything of merit to assist them. The Turnbull-Joyce government is making a real difference, helping regional Australia to overcome the barriers of distance, communication and technology.
Up to 21 of the 71 mobile black spots nominated in Capricornia are being addressed. In the last two years, we have seen funding for 10 new mobile phone towers or major upgrades to existing towers allocated across Capricornia, and that is just in Capricornia. Across Australia, these commitments under rounds 1 and 2 of the coalition's Mobile Black Spot Program will improve mobile coverage along major transport routes, in small communities and in locations prone to experiencing natural disasters. Further coverage will be provided by handheld or external antennas to all parts of the Livingstone, Isaac, Pioneer Valley, Sarina and Mackay districts.
On 9 May this year, I visited the Clarke Creek State School to see the damage caused by Cyclone Debbie. The school was in a terrible state, but there was one beacon of light: the brand new mobile phone tower just near the school stood bright and undamaged. I can assure you, Deputy Speaker, that the magical five bars are a welcome relief to this community and not taken for granted. The kids in Clarke Creek can now have the world at their fingertips, research their school assignments online and, yes, annoy mum by incessantly playing Candy Crush.
Producers can check cattle prices while out fixing a fence. Parents can now call to say they are running late or book medical appointments while waiting for the kids to finish school. Some of these activities may seem frivolous, but for regional Australians this is a novelty.
Most importantly, it increases connectivity and productivity for regional Australia. It gives regional Australians a chance to create, to study and to grow, just as their city compatriots can do. I applaud the coalition government for evening out the playing field and giving the regions a chance to grow.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Is there a seconder for this motion?
Mr Hastie: There is, and I reserve my right to speak.
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (19:14): There is no doubt that the government's Mobile Black Spot Program has led to positive outcomes in regional Australia. There are many country communities that are more connected and much safer as a result of the rollout of the 765 towers in rounds 1 and 2. However, from where I stand as a representative of the regional communities of Mayo, the program has only addressed a fraction of the need in rural Australia. The fact that there are no further rounds in the budget beyond round 3 is just ridiculous.
If the government believe they have addressed mobile phone coverage across our nation, they are misinformed. On a drive from north to south across the mainland portion of my electorate from Springton to Cape Jervis, I will drop out of mobile phone coverage at least 10 times, and many of those periods are quite extended, beyond 15 minutes of driving. On Kangaroo Island outside the townships, the coverage is sporadic at best. And, as my electorate discovered to its detriment earlier this year, the allocation of taxpayer money for this program has overlooked a significant problem of limited battery storage when the mobile phone towers run out of power. The power is always cut on extreme bushfire days, so you have this incredibly dangerous situation in high-risk bushfire areas where there is no mobile telecommunications on our most catastrophic days.
In February 2016, the government announced $60 million for round 2 of the mobile phone black-spot funding. This funding equated to 266 new mobile phone tower stations. South Australia was granted just 20 of these nominated sites and Mayo received just two, at Stokes Bay, on Kangaroo Island, and Parawa, on the Fleurieu Peninsula. These are very deserving locations, but we need so many more. At the beginning of round 1 in December 2014, there were 133 mobile black-spot sites identified in Mayo, but by the end of round 2 we had just three allocations.
Our community needs and deserves full coverage. Our hills, escarpment and dense bushland make driving on our country roads dangerous, and we are, sadly, known as a region that has had its fair share of bushfires. This program must go beyond round 3. It is unacceptable for the government to leave regional Australia behind. We are a vast country, and it is premature for the government to think that mobile phone coverage in regional Australia will be complete by round 3, so I will continue to advocate for this program. In my region alone, 44 priority sites out of 130 nominations in Mayo need the chance of coverage.
I will also be seeking answers to the questions I have previously raised in parliament about the limited battery storage capabilities in mobile phone towers, particularly in high-risk areas. It is unacceptable that towers go out after just four hours of battery storage and that it is inevitable that we will lose power. We need at least 12 hours of storage. Telecommunication is our survival key. Fibre-to-the-node and fixed wireless NBN only works when we have power. When it is a catastrophic day, we lose power, so we lose our ability to communicate with the outside world. This is effectively leaving people in my community stranded.
Last year over the Christmas period, in the middle of the fire danger season, in my communities of Mylor, Echunga, Scott Creek, Bridgewater and Aldgate we lost power for days, not hours. Besides many practical hardships such as not being able to flush toilets or pump drinking water, these communities lost contact with the rest of the world. Besides sighting smoke, we had no idea if a fire was coming. Most of the mobile phone towers in the area failed within just a few hours, and batteries at the phone exchange also went down. As many of the parts of the area have fibre to the node, households lost their landlines immediately.
I call on the government with round 3 and any future rounds—and I do hope that this continues—to make sure that we have at least 12 hours of battery storage. This will improve the program. I think that it is only fair that we expect telcos to do this when we are providing them with taxpayer funds. The Mobile Black Spot Program, as the member for Capricornia said, has delivered many good outcomes for regional and remote Australia, but it must continue because regional and rural Australia should not be left behind.
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (19:18): It is a common story in my electorate that residents have slow, unreliable internet, poor-quality landlines and little to no mobile phone coverage. This is in part due to the geography of Canning. It is defined by a coastline, hills, forests and farmland. It is also due to the rapid expansion of the region's population over a short period of time—by something like 45,000 people in the last decade. But mostly it is due to a former Labor government that failed to adequately address the problem. Infrastructure has not kept pace with growth in Canning, which is why I am focusing on improving roads and rail and, today, as we are talking about it, telecommunications.
Already the coalition government is helping to deliver better internet to Canning through the NBN rollout. Of the 67,000 homes in Canning, over a third are already connected to the NBN, with more expected to connect in the coming months. But perhaps more critical to the people of Canning is the number of mobile phone black spots across the electorate. Today most people have a mobile phone, and it is near impossible to live without one. But I have heard time and again from my constituents that they get better mobile phone coverage in countries like Thailand and Indonesia than they do at home where they live, and they are not wrong. I myself have had better mobile phone reception in the jungles of Papua New Guinea just outside Lae.
There are mobile phone black spots all over Canning—in the northern hills areas and around Martin and Karragullen. Last week I met with Dale Miller, Dave and Elaine Wainscoat, Gordon Brockway and others in Martin. They had to fork out $2,000 for an external antenna to improve their coverage, despite being less than 40 kilometres from the Perth CBD. On the outskirts of towns like Byford, Mundijong, Serpentine and Jarrahdale, people also struggle for mobile phone reception. To the far east, between Dwellingup and Boddington, there are also issues. In fact, ministers who have visited Canning drop out of reach for about 15 to 20 minutes as they head to Boddington—a welcome relief for some. In the south, around Lake Clifton, we also have black spots.
At best, these black spots are a hindrance to productivity for business owners in Canning—many of whom operate from their homes—but it is a severe limiter for people who want to grow a business, educate remotely and, indeed, catch up with family and friends who live on the east coast or elsewhere around the world. At worst, they are a threat to personal safety. For some older residents, no mobile phone reception at home and no landline in some cases means the only way of communicating with family is to drive five to 10 kilometres down towards town. I think of Mr Orlando, who had to move out of Canning because of poor health and even poorer mobile phone coverage.
For others living in bushfire prone areas, mobile phone black spots are a serious threat to their lives. I think of Hugh and Erica Scott. Their home phone has only worked for six weeks out of the 11 months since the Waroona bushfires around Christmas of 2015-16. There was very little mobile phone coverage, and they were told by Telstra to buy an external antenna to improve their coverage. Their home phone was finally connected as of Anzac Day 2017—16 months after the fires.
But, thanks to the coalition's Mobile Black Spot Program, this government is delivering better mobile phone services to regional and rural Australia. The government has already invested significantly in Canning. Four mobile phone black spot locations have received funding. Dwellingup was the first black spot identified, followed last year by Lake Clifton, Serpentine-Keysbrook and Waroona North. The funding has been secured for the development of these sites, and I am continuing to apply pressure to see them rolled out as soon as possible.
Looking forward, it is obvious that Canning must continue to be a priority for mobile phone coverage development. Reliable mobile phone coverage is a vital utility in this day and age for both personal and professional life. As I mentioned, it is key to advancing educational and social opportunities for residents. It is not a luxury of modern life; it is an essential service. I will work very closely with the people of Canning to ensure that everyone has adequate service.
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (19:23): I think this matter says a lot about this government and, again, its failure to deliver. It is quite interesting that the member who put this motion forward cannot stay in this chamber to listen to the contributions because she knows how bad this program has become. Several people in my electorate of Braddon are wondering what is happening to the towers that they were promised by my predecessor. Perhaps the member for Capricornia would not mind asking her National Party colleague, a senator for New South Wales who is also the Minister for Regional Communications, where the funding she committed to in May last year for Gunns Plains, Sulphur Creek and Devonport has gone.
The former member for Braddon was quoted in the local paper—The Advocate—at the time as saying:
"A re-elected Coalition government will immediately invite mobile network operators … to provide coverage in the identified locations at the earliest opportunity," …
Either I have a different understanding of the term 'immediately' or something is astray with the former member's commitment. In the meantime, Sulphur Creek residents and businesses have become increasingly frustrated with no news from the government. In December, the government handed out funding for Temma and Yolla, which I certainly welcome, but, to be honest, I was left with more questions than answers. I organised a community meeting in Sulphur Creek with Telstra a little while ago and, thanks to the community, Telstra is taking the issue very seriously, but this still begs the question: where did the commitment for Sulphur Creek go?
In February I presented an additional petition from Sulphur Creek residents to the House. Despite this, and a letter to the minister, I have had no reply. Fortunately, my office has been regularly checking the department's website for updates and any news on round 3, and last week we noticed a not-too-subtle change. The government has changed the wording for round 3 of this program to 'government priority locations', which proves once and for all that this is a political process. While I welcome the fact that finally Gunns Plains, Sulphur Creek and Devonport are listed among the locations, it is telling that there are three times as many government priority locations in coalition electorates and that all 29 sites that fall in Labor electorates are in marginal seats. If that is not a cynical political exercise then what is it?
I am also concerned that the wording on the website, 'There will be an approach to market in 2017 to deliver on these commitments, subject to a suitable application by carriers,' may enable the government to walk away from these commitments. I certainly hope that this does not happen and that an announcement is made soon, because going by the delays in rolling out round 1 of the program, Sulphur Creek, Devonport and Gunns Plains residents could have a long wait ahead of them.
Sisters Beach residents were told in June 2015 that their mobile phone reception would get fixed, and this has still not happened. I know these things take time, but this is a community that has had numerous problems, with residents unable to contact emergency services in times of need. The technology is also co-located on an NBN tower that surely could have been resolved in a much quicker time frame.
In Braddon, 109 sites were identified as being mobile phone blackspots, and so far just nine have been announced in rounds 1 and 2 of the government's program. So again we have the government, this time through the member for Capricornia, proudly spruiking their achievements in this area, while communities such as Gunns Plains and Sulphur Creek are left wondering when, and if, they will ever get the funding that was promised to them in the lead-up to the last election. Unfortunately, I hold out little hope of ever receiving a response from the government on this issue for these communities. The government have been in for four years, yet still these people are waiting. It seems those opposite too easily forget this very critical fact: they are the government and they should start delivering on their commitments.
Ms PRICE (Durack) (19:27): I rise to speak on the private member's motion, moved by the member for Capricornia, on the Mobile Blackspot Program. What a valuable initiative this has been from the federal government. This $220 million program—as you will understand, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, as a fellow regional member—is a massive boost to regional businesses and regional life in general. Mobile phone coverage is something that those living in the cities often take for granted, but we in the regions need to travel great distances while juggling work and family commitments. That is no easy task. I have often found myself, whilst travelling around my electorate, out of phone coverage, often for hours but occasionally for days.
This was the focus for round 1 of the Mobile Black Spot Program in my electorate: to directly facilitate business, lifestyle and investment in regional Australia by boosting coverage around towns and cities in my electorate. Then round 2, announced late last year, was rolled out, and in Durack we saw a shift in thinking. We saw a move towards a policy of creating jobs and investment through the innovative placement of mobile phone towers. Tourism will be the big winner because of that slight shift in focus. Tourism, as we all know, is a growth sector in many parts of regional Australia. I have been a vocal supporter of a more robust tourism industry in the north-west and I am a strong believer in the potential of tourism in the north-west, in particular in my electorate of Durack. But we can do so much more to capture potential markets and create local jobs. With the rollout of the Mobile Black Spot Program round 2 we saw a focus on tourist areas in the Kimberley and the Pilbara, like Karijini National Park and Millstream, and a variety of other initiatives to try and encourage the tourism industry in this part of the world. Funding was also committed for further towers in the Mid West and the Wheatbelt, which I was very pleased to hear about as well. But I would like to focus on those places throughout the Top End and the north-west, in a bid to increase tourist numbers.
The modern tourist expects mobile phone coverage. They expect to be able to go on an adventure holiday to see something unique and beautiful, like Karajini, yet come back to modern facilities at night and surf the web or call family, or just to feel safe. The modern tourist, while chasing some adventure and excitement, does not want to sacrifice comfort, which is something we in Australia need to understand if we are to attract the modern-day tourist. That is why placing mobile phone towers in these national parks is so important, because they facilitate the tourism industry in one of the most remote and spectacular national parks in this country. The rangers who patrol these areas, the tourism operators running businesses out there and the tourists themselves all stand to benefit from these decisions, and I welcome that wholeheartedly, especially from a safety perspective.
A Productivity Commission report released in 2015 detailed the type of tourist we are seeing travelling throughout Australia, and we now know what sort of tourist is attracted to a holiday in the north-west, in my electorate of Durack. We know that Chinese tourists enjoy coming to the historic Chinatown in Broome, for example. They enjoy staying in a nice or hotel or resort, being collected every day and being taken on their day trip and being collected from their hotel back to the airport. They will go back to the resort where they stay so they can dine as a family in the restaurant.
We also know that we have some more adventurous tourists coming now from places like Japan and South Korea, who are after a very different experience, and they are very welcome. They are happy to hire their own car, drive themselves to their accommodation and are more likely to go camping—in most cases it is more like glamping, of course—in a national park. These markets of South Korean and Japanese tourists visiting the ruggedly beautiful national parks of the Pilbara and the Kimberley need to be supported, and that is what round 2 of the Mobile Black Spot Program brings into play.
In contrast—we heard some complaining before that nothing has happened—I can assure the member who was talking about it that nothing happened while you were in charge, so you might want to talk to your colleagues who are sitting there. Not one dollar went towards fixing this very important issue across Australia when Labor was in government. What a disgrace, yet they are here now complaining that we are not doing it quickly enough. They do not support regional and rural Australia. They showed that during those long years that they were here. We on this side support regional Australia. We are backing regional Australia and I am very proud of that.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (19:33): It is unparliamentary to refer to a person in this place as a liar, and out of deep respect to you, Deputy Speaker Coulton, and the rules of this place, I will not do it, but the persistent indifference to the truth that has just been displayed by the member for Durack and the mover of this motion, the member for Capricornia, really does test the patience of every Labor member of the House. They persistently show their ignorance when it comes to the engineering requirements of mobile phone telephony in this country when they peddle the lives and indifference to truth about how this program has been rolling out and about Labor's contributions to mobile black spot funding in the past.
Before the government came into office there was history. There was a world before the government came to office. There was a program known as the Regional Backbone Blackspots Program. It was a Labor initiative of $250 million, which was invested in putting the backhaul infrastructure—that is, the cable that joins the mobile phone towers together—to ensure that those mobile phone blackspots could be filled in. So these 500 mobile phone towers that they brag about simply could not exist if Labor had not invested the $250 million in the Regional Backbone Blackspots Program. I can guarantee you that that money was not siphoned off, as it has been under this program, for political and other purposes.
A few months ago, the Australian National Audit Office published a damning report of the government's management of this program. Not one government speaker mentioned it, for good reason. Only the National Party could take a fundamentally good idea and muck it up the way that they have, turning it into a slush fund for their own rank political purposes. They love to talk about the contribution that they have made for remote and regional communities. Well, I have had a look at some of these regional and remote communities that have been funded by this program. There is a place called Belmont. It is as far away as 12 kilometres from the CBD of Brisbane, and it is funded under round 3 of this program. There is another place called Karana Downs, which is 22 kilometres away. That is a skateboard and a short bus ride from the CBD of Brisbane. Yet these champions of regional Australia say this is a great program and they have done a fantastic job by funding these mobile phone black spots in areas that you can see from the CBD of Brisbane—or from Perth. I could go around the entire country and find examples where the minister has used public money for a political purpose. It is not just us who are saying this; it is the Australian National Audit Office who are saying this money has not been efficiently used.
In round 1 of this program, 20 per cent of the mobile phone black spots that were funded did not extend coverage. Twenty per cent of the towers—that is one in five of the towers—that were funded did not extend coverage. When pressed on this issue, the minister said, 'Oh, well, it wasn't all about extending coverage.' There are many people who think that a mobile black spot program is about filling in black spots, but, 'No,' the minister went on to say, 'some of this was about competition and ensuring that we had more competition in the bush.' Fair enough, except that over 70 per cent of the funds went to the incumbent mobile telephone operator. How is that for improving competition? They actually entrenched a monopoly for mobile phone coverage in the bush.
So we will not cop a lecture. We will not cop this persistent indifference to the truth from the mover of this motion and the champions who come in here after her saying that this program has been an unmitigated success. It has not. The Australian National Audit Office was damning in its criticism. It appears that the government have learned nothing from their mistakes in round 1. So we again call on the Australian National Audit Office to run a ruler over the operations of this program, because it appears that the National Party have stuffed it up again.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of debate will be made an order for the next day of sitting.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:38
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Child Support Program
(Question No. 687)
Mr Perrett asked the Minister for Social Services, in writing, on 20 March 2017:
Will the Minister provide a timeframe for the Government's implementation of 18 of the
25 recommendations in the report From conflict to cooperation: Inquiry into the Child Support Program (House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, 20 July 2015) that it agreed to in full, part or principle in its response presented on
31 August 2016.
Mr Porter: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
In the 2017-18 Budget, the Government announced its response to three priority recommendations made in the Committee's report.
This Budget measure will address long-standing issues in the child support scheme relating to care disputes (Recommendation 8), amended tax assessments and child support agreements (Recommendation 12) and payee overpayments (Recommendation 22).
The changes relating to care disputes and amended tax assessments will have a start date of 1 January 2018, while changes relating to child support agreements and overpayments will have a start date of 1 July 2018.
In relation to the remaining recommendations that would require amendment of the child support legislation, the Government is considering potential proposals for future implementation.
Financial Assistance grants
(Question No. 694)
Ms McGowan asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in writing, on 20 March 2017:
(1) Will the Government lift the freeze on the indexation of the Financial Assistance Grants in the 2017-18 budget.
(2) What sum was saved by each local government area (LGA) as a result of the freeze on Financial Assistance Grants, and can this be provided as a list by LGA.
(3) What sum of funding was provided to local governments through tied grants programs in each financial year since the freeze, under which Government program was it provided, and can this be provided as a list by LGA.
(4) What were the administrative costs for the Commonwealth of the grants programs identified in response to part (3).
(5) Has modelling been done on the costs for local governments that are required to apply for grant funding, and can this be published.
(6) In respect of the Government doubling payments to local governments under its Roads to Recovery Programme in 2015-16, (a) was this additional funding brought forward from future years of the program, and (b) will the funding in future years be maintained at the higher level.
Mr Chester: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) Indexation will resume on 1 July 2017, as announced in the 2017-18 Budget.
(2) The 2014-15 Budget estimated the pause on indexation under the Financial Assistance Grant program would save $925 million from 2014-15 over the forward years.
Individual council allocations are determined by independent jurisdictional Local Government Grants Commissions in each state and Northern Territory. As the Australian Government does not have access to the complex methodologies used to calculate individual local government allocations it is unable to provide savings figures by local government area as a result of the pause on indexation.
(3) Roads to Recovery payments for 2014-15 to March 2017 provided in Allocation and Payment Summary Report from IMS in Excel format Attachment A. The Department has excluded the Black Spot programme and the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Programme as the Department regards these as payments to the states.
(4) The Department is not able to provide a breakdown of the administrative costs associated with the programmes identified in the response to part (3) as the Department is unable to extract reliable or very verifiable figures.
(5) The Department has not conducted any modelling on the costs to apply for grant funding.
(6) (a) No.
(b) In the 2016 Budget, the Australian Government committed to an extension of the Roads to Recovery programme, with a further $50 million funding per annum from 2019-20 onwards, bringing the annual commitment to $400 million.
Attachments
Attachment A – Roads to Recovery payments for 2014-15 to March 2017
ATTACHMENT A
Roads to Recovery payments for 2014-15 to March 2017
|
2014-15 to 2018-19 Allocation |
Payments to Date |
Payments 2014-2015 |
Payments 2015-2016 |
Payments 2016-2017 |
|
Program Life Total: |
$3,205,000,000 |
$1,901,266,150 |
$322,066,920 |
$1,002,761,964 |
$576,437,266 |
|
NSW |
Albury City Council |
$5,483,103 |
$2,909,678 |
$598,854 |
$1,710,823 |
$600,001 |
Armidale Dumaresq Council |
$1,741,000 |
$1,741,000 |
|
$1,741,000 |
$0 |
|
Armidale Regional Council |
$6,689,614 |
|
|
|
|
|
Ashfield Council |
$594,630 |
$594,630 |
$144,630 |
$450,000 |
$0 |
|
Auburn City Council |
$1,088,779 |
$1,088,779 |
$279,100 |
$809,679 |
$0 |
|
Ballina Shire Council |
$5,469,445 |
$3,693,800 |
$886,800 |
$1,706,562 |
$1,100,438 |
|
Balranald Shire Council |
$5,338,325 |
$3,161,797 |
$591,166 |
$1,665,650 |
$904,981 |
|
Bankstown City Council |
$2,763,263 |
$2,763,263 |
$716,460 |
$2,046,803 |
$0 |
|
Bathurst Regional Council |
$8,066,313 |
$4,194,387 |
$857,443 |
$2,516,830 |
$820,114 |
|
Bayside Council |
$2,651,264 |
|
|
|
|
|
Bega Valley Shire Council |
$7,917,995 |
$3,595,322 |
$829,799 |
$2,464,519 |
$301,004 |
|
Bellingen Shire Council |
$3,697,946 |
$1,533,824 |
$380,000 |
$1,153,824 |
$0 |
|
Berrigan Shire Council |
$5,542,837 |
$3,307,907 |
$769,355 |
$1,917,934 |
$620,618 |
|
Blacktown City Council |
$13,264,676 |
$13,264,676 |
$8,419,447 |
$4,138,811 |
$706,418 |
|
Bland Shire Council |
$11,922,092 |
$5,798,155 |
$1,167,096 |
$3,719,900 |
$911,159 |
|
Blayney Shire Council |
$3,418,382 |
$2,050,500 |
$155,000 |
$1,066,595 |
$828,905 |
|
Blue Mountains City Council |
$5,763,111 |
$2,427,627 |
$629,436 |
$1,798,191 |
$0 |
|
Bogan Shire Council |
$5,714,811 |
$3,066,029 |
$800,461 |
$1,783,120 |
$482,448 |
|
Bombala Council |
$1,168,029 |
$1,168,029 |
$200,000 |
$968,029 |
$0 |
|
Boorowa Council |
$1,201,402 |
$1,201,402 |
$376,540 |
$824,862 |
$0 |
|
Botany Bay City Council |
$593,013 |
$593,013 |
|
$593,013 |
$0 |
|
Bourke Shire Council |
$7,698,704 |
$4,629,983 |
$846,246 |
$2,396,948 |
$1,386,789 |
|
Brewarrina Shire Council |
$5,273,513 |
$3,033,641 |
$512,563 |
$1,732,793 |
$788,285 |
|
Broken Hill City Council |
$2,100,970 |
$1,530,545 |
|
$655,539 |
$875,006 |
|
Burwood Council |
$1,078,295 |
$842,756 |
$117,769 |
$336,447 |
$388,540 |
|
Byron Shire Council |
$4,956,691 |
$3,905,255 |
$710,082 |
$1,554,203 |
$1,640,970 |
|
Cabonne Council |
$8,572,817 |
$6,700,204 |
$936,307 |
$2,674,869 |
$3,089,028 |
|
The Council of Camden |
$4,420,688 |
$1,862,151 |
$482,819 |
$1,379,332 |
$0 |
|
Campbelltown City Council |
$7,042,644 |
$5,499,472 |
$752,738 |
$2,197,428 |
$2,549,306 |
|
City of Canada Bay Council |
$2,579,180 |
$2,294,632 |
|
$1,199,730 |
$1,094,902 |
|
Canterbury City Council |
$2,014,022 |
$2,014,022 |
$644,061 |
$1,369,961 |
$0 |
|
Canterbury-Bankstown Council |
$6,173,269 |
$2,566,982 |
|
|
$2,566,982 |
|
Carrathool Shire Council |
$9,304,154 |
$5,186,905 |
$946,406 |
$2,903,058 |
$1,337,441 |
|
Central Coast Council (NSW) |
$10,924,427 |
$641,192 |
|
|
$641,192 |
|
Central Darling Shire Council |
$6,431,251 |
$3,857,799 |
$702,409 |
$2,006,662 |
$1,148,728 |
|
Cessnock City Council |
$6,955,984 |
$3,944,865 |
$700,000 |
$2,170,389 |
$1,074,476 |
|
Clarence Valley Council |
$13,310,513 |
$8,100,249 |
$1,422,131 |
$4,153,112 |
$2,525,006 |
|
Cobar Shire Council |
$6,974,503 |
$4,077,987 |
$760,000 |
$2,177,879 |
$1,140,108 |
|
Coffs Harbour City Council |
$8,536,880 |
$4,725,964 |
$932,382 |
$2,686,983 |
$1,106,599 |
|
Conargo Shire Council |
$2,102,530 |
$2,102,530 |
$545,145 |
$1,557,385 |
$0 |
|
Coolamon Shire Council |
$5,266,052 |
$3,109,501 |
$596,861 |
$1,666,522 |
$846,118 |
|
Cooma-Monaro Shire Council |
$1,833,799 |
$1,833,799 |
$399,345 |
$1,434,454 |
$0 |
|
Coonamble Shire Council |
$5,975,554 |
$2,977,280 |
$613,097 |
$1,880,162 |
$484,021 |
|
Cootamundra Shire Council |
$1,258,482 |
$1,258,482 |
$326,300 |
$932,182 |
$0 |
|
Cootamundra-Gundagai Regional Council |
$3,968,356 |
|
|
|
|
|
Corowa Shire Council |
$2,494,029 |
$2,494,029 |
$650,000 |
$1,844,029 |
$0 |
|
Cowra Shire Council |
$5,884,968 |
$2,887,703 |
$893,193 |
$1,836,213 |
$158,297 |
|
Cumberland Council |
$3,722,937 |
$1,965,343 |
|
|
$1,965,343 |
|
Deniliquin Council |
$475,133 |
$475,133 |
$123,193 |
$351,940 |
|
|
Dubbo City Council |
$3,162,714 |
$3,162,714 |
$820,029 |
$2,342,685 |
$0 |
|
Dubbo Regional Council |
$7,557,099 |
$2,025,886 |
|
|
$2,025,886 |
|
Dungog Shire Council |
$3,675,859 |
$1,743,414 |
|
$1,146,932 |
$596,482 |
|
Edward River Council |
$3,541,628 |
|
|
|
|
|
Eurobodalla Shire Council |
$6,789,254 |
$5,244,565 |
$536,509 |
$2,118,365 |
$2,589,691 |
|
Fairfield City Council |
$7,163,256 |
$4,676,287 |
$782,357 |
$2,233,700 |
$1,660,230 |
|
Federation Council |
$5,264,223 |
|
|
|
|
|
Forbes Shire Council |
$7,811,204 |
$2,718,875 |
$0 |
$2,437,232 |
$281,643 |
|
Georges River Council |
$2,649,281 |
|
|
|
|
|
Gilgandra Shire Council |
$5,642,261 |
$3,338,228 |
$616,234 |
$1,758,743 |
$963,251 |
|
Glen Innes Severn Council |
$5,557,903 |
$2,114,073 |
$348,296 |
$1,734,162 |
$31,615 |
|
Gloucester Shire Council |
$1,558,994 |
$1,558,994 |
$404,217 |
$1,154,777 |
$0 |
|
Gosford City Council |
$3,803,405 |
$3,803,405 |
$986,148 |
$2,817,257 |
$0 |
|
Goulburn Mulwaree Council |
$6,967,259 |
$4,942,857 |
$760,950 |
$2,173,907 |
$2,008,000 |
|
Great Lakes Council |
$2,889,303 |
$2,889,303 |
$740,000 |
$2,149,303 |
$0 |
|
Greater Hume Shire Council |
$8,241,886 |
$4,945,443 |
$812,060 |
$2,571,612 |
$1,561,771 |
|
Greater Taree City Council |
$4,262,461 |
$4,262,461 |
$875,000 |
$3,387,461 |
$0 |
|
Griffith City Council |
$6,559,011 |
$4,344,673 |
$682,329 |
$2,080,559 |
$1,581,785 |
|
Gundagai Shire Council |
$1,110,029 |
$1,110,029 |
$65,000 |
$1,045,029 |
$0 |
|
Gunnedah Shire Council |
$6,474,623 |
$3,270,244 |
$595,050 |
$2,020,196 |
$654,998 |
|
Guyra Shire Council |
$1,470,837 |
$1,470,837 |
$242,326 |
$1,228,511 |
$0 |
|
Gwydir Shire Council |
$8,121,943 |
$5,116,942 |
$845,412 |
$2,545,128 |
$1,726,402 |
|
Harden Shire Council |
$1,458,705 |
$1,458,705 |
$383,487 |
$1,075,218 |
$0 |
|
Hawkesbury City Council |
$7,110,422 |
$5,007,503 |
$776,587 |
$2,203,778 |
$2,027,138 |
|
Hay Shire Council |
$3,260,540 |
$1,881,176 |
$355,760 |
$1,017,345 |
$508,071 |
|
The Hills Shire Council |
$8,339,125 |
$5,073,248 |
$910,783 |
$2,601,953 |
$1,560,512 |
|
Hilltops Council |
$7,033,650 |
$496,536 |
|
|
$496,536 |
|
Holroyd City Council |
$2,052,326 |
$2,052,326 |
$838,627 |
$1,213,699 |
$0 |
|
Hornsby Shire Council |
$6,515,444 |
$2,744,537 |
$711,604 |
$2,032,933 |
$0 |
|
Hunter's Hill Municipal Council |
$619,798 |
$619,798 |
$406,159 |
$193,386 |
$20,253 |
|
Hurstville City Council |
$1,123,732 |
$1,123,732 |
$291,000 |
$832,732 |
$0 |
|
Inner West Council |
$3,158,719 |
$812,627 |
|
|
$812,627 |
|
Inverell Shire Council |
$8,332,537 |
$5,188,825 |
$406,016 |
$2,599,898 |
$2,182,911 |
|
Jerilderie Shire Council |
$1,730,736 |
$1,730,736 |
$448,746 |
$1,281,990 |
$0 |
|
Junee Shire Council |
$3,751,944 |
$2,099,917 |
$409,780 |
$1,170,671 |
$519,466 |
|
Kempsey Shire Council |
$7,486,835 |
$4,665,755 |
$817,698 |
$2,336,023 |
$1,512,034 |
|
Kiama Municipal Council |
$1,944,097 |
$1,519,436 |
$212,331 |
$606,592 |
$700,513 |
|
Kogarah City Council |
$803,928 |
$803,928 |
$208,396 |
$595,532 |
|
|
Ku-ring-gai Council |
$4,681,492 |
$2,903,707 |
$673,000 |
$1,460,707 |
$770,000 |
|
Kyogle Council |
$6,721,951 |
$4,632,294 |
$450,000 |
$2,097,366 |
$2,084,928 |
|
Lachlan Shire Council |
$13,668,819 |
$6,453,845 |
$1,492,883 |
$4,059,658 |
$901,304 |
|
Lake Macquarie City Council |
$11,461,974 |
$5,628,191 |
$1,251,855 |
$3,576,336 |
$800,000 |
|
Lane Cove Council |
$1,114,744 |
$871,243 |
$121,750 |
$347,819 |
$401,674 |
|
Leeton Shire Council |
$4,294,519 |
$2,339,069 |
$469,039 |
$1,339,964 |
$530,066 |
|
Leichhardt Municipal Council |
$802,510 |
$802,510 |
$241,476 |
$561,034 |
$0 |
|
Lismore City Council |
$8,081,104 |
$5,048,966 |
$882,603 |
$2,521,446 |
$1,644,917 |
|
City of Lithgow Council |
$5,116,405 |
$3,181,659 |
|
$1,596,407 |
$1,585,252 |
|
Liverpool City Council |
$8,744,338 |
$4,619,177 |
$951,535 |
$2,728,350 |
$939,292 |
|
Liverpool Plains Shire Council |
$5,555,987 |
$3,255,514 |
$552,364 |
$1,733,565 |
$969,585 |
|
Lockhart Shire council |
$6,468,876 |
$3,738,792 |
$701,794 |
$2,002,188 |
$1,034,810 |
|
Lord Howe Island Board |
$329,023 |
$137,900 |
|
$137,900 |
$0 |
|
Maitland City Council |
$5,427,898 |
$2,406,423 |
$592,825 |
$1,693,598 |
$120,000 |
|
Manly Council |
$687,239 |
$687,239 |
$188,305 |
$498,934 |
|
|
Marrickville Council |
$1,043,648 |
$1,043,648 |
$253,760 |
$789,888 |
$0 |
|
Mid-Coast Council |
$12,735,292 |
$3,727,808 |
|
|
$3,727,808 |
|
Mid-Western Regional Council |
$9,669,960 |
$5,171,369 |
$1,047,296 |
$3,017,195 |
$1,106,878 |
|
Moree Plains Shire Council |
$11,713,372 |
$6,006,630 |
$1,235,160 |
$3,698,929 |
$1,072,541 |
|
Mosman Municipal Council |
$1,006,784 |
$801,583 |
$110,000 |
$315,000 |
$376,583 |
|
Murray Shire Council |
$2,619,340 |
$2,619,340 |
$710,307 |
$1,909,033 |
$0 |
|
Murray River Council |
$6,738,477 |
$1,123,075 |
|
|
$1,123,075 |
|
Murrumbidgee Council |
$3,812,779 |
$677,118 |
|
|
$677,118 |
|
Murrumbidgee Shire Council |
$1,044,275 |
$1,044,275 |
|
$1,044,275 |
$0 |
|
Muswellbrook Shire Council |
$3,785,444 |
$2,024,308 |
$409,059 |
$979,686 |
$635,563 |
|
Nambucca Shire Council |
$4,919,032 |
$2,883,181 |
$531,200 |
$1,534,824 |
$817,157 |
|
Narrabri Shire Council |
$9,659,030 |
$6,948,476 |
$1,054,941 |
$3,013,786 |
$2,879,749 |
|
Narrandera Shire Council |
$6,224,406 |
$3,717,844 |
|
$2,148,537 |
$1,569,307 |
|
Narromine Shire Council |
$5,726,210 |
$3,346,736 |
$615,169 |
$1,786,678 |
$944,889 |
|
Newcastle City Council |
$7,544,363 |
$3,743,981 |
$779,981 |
$2,353,972 |
$610,028 |
|
North Sydney Council |
$1,994,860 |
$1,994,860 |
$217,875 |
$1,165,000 |
$611,985 |
|
Northern Beaches Council |
$5,190,206 |
$2,345,812 |
|
|
$2,345,812 |
|
Oberon Council |
$3,792,692 |
$2,526,367 |
$400,000 |
$1,182,520 |
$943,847 |
|
Orange City Council |
$4,589,499 |
$3,599,160 |
$500,000 |
$1,432,160 |
$1,667,000 |
|
Palerang Council |
$2,394,757 |
$2,394,757 |
$620,914 |
$1,773,843 |
$0 |
|
Parkes Shire Council |
$8,113,932 |
$3,417,875 |
$886,188 |
$2,531,687 |
$0 |
|
City of Parramatta Council |
$6,220,210 |
$3,855,214 |
$745,804 |
$2,059,214 |
$1,050,196 |
|
Penrith City Council |
$9,639,114 |
$6,936,281 |
$1,052,766 |
$3,007,531 |
$2,875,984 |
|
Pittwater Council |
$1,107,381 |
$1,107,381 |
$287,122 |
$820,259 |
$0 |
|
Port Macquarie Hastings Council |
$11,423,993 |
$6,081,317 |
$1,247,707 |
$3,564,384 |
$1,269,226 |
|
Port Stephens Council |
$5,069,929 |
$3,283,745 |
$533,728 |
$1,581,906 |
$1,168,111 |
|
Queanbeyan City Council |
$1,608,138 |
$1,608,138 |
$423,291 |
$1,184,847 |
$0 |
|
Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council |
$5,478,586 |
$450,000 |
|
|
$450,000 |
|
Randwick City Council |
$4,011,606 |
$2,621,336 |
$404,786 |
$1,251,690 |
$964,860 |
|
Richmond Valley Council |
$6,420,841 |
$4,150,808 |
$701,272 |
$2,003,415 |
$1,446,121 |
|
Roads and Maritime Services |
$6,214,884 |
$2,881,988 |
$846,000 |
$1,939,606 |
$96,382 |
|
Roads and Traffic Authority |
$0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Rockdale City Council |
$1,400,980 |
$1,400,980 |
$341,820 |
$1,059,160 |
$0 |
|
Council of the City of Ryde |
$3,787,928 |
$2,904,352 |
$492,452 |
$1,181,900 |
$1,230,000 |
|
Shellharbour City Council |
$3,590,980 |
$1,585,072 |
$160,000 |
$1,196,992 |
$228,080 |
|
Shoalhaven City Council |
$13,521,739 |
$8,863,403 |
$1,140,042 |
$4,219,019 |
$3,504,342 |
|
Singleton Council |
$5,061,304 |
$2,376,465 |
$547,250 |
$1,579,215 |
$250,000 |
|
Snowy Monaro Regional Council |
$6,680,900 |
$2,132,196 |
|
|
$2,132,196 |
|
Snowy River Shire Council |
$1,559,278 |
$1,559,278 |
$312,426 |
$1,246,852 |
$0 |
|
Snowy Valleys Council |
$3,687,408 |
|
|
|
|
|
Strathfield Municipal Council |
$1,167,995 |
$510,497 |
|
$244,685 |
$265,812 |
|
Sutherland Shire Council |
$8,497,865 |
$5,789,900 |
$1,402,348 |
$2,651,481 |
$1,736,071 |
|
City of Sydney |
$5,174,529 |
$3,571,416 |
$583,067 |
$1,614,542 |
$1,373,807 |
|
Tamworth Regional Council |
$16,862,733 |
$11,664,630 |
$1,848,653 |
$5,185,273 |
$4,630,704 |
|
Temora Shire Council |
$4,973,894 |
$2,910,228 |
$445,097 |
$1,551,942 |
$913,189 |
|
Tenterfield Shire Council |
$6,777,326 |
$3,552,611 |
$740,207 |
$2,114,643 |
$697,761 |
|
Tumbarumba Shire Council |
$987,251 |
$987,251 |
|
$987,251 |
$0 |
|
Tumut Shire Council |
$1,052,102 |
$1,052,102 |
|
$1,052,102 |
$0 |
|
Tweed Shire Council |
$11,455,994 |
$7,882,385 |
$2,150,000 |
$3,574,470 |
$2,157,915 |
|
Upper Hunter Shire Council |
$7,917,453 |
$5,043,371 |
$854,315 |
$2,471,259 |
$1,717,797 |
|
Upper Lachlan Council |
$7,689,502 |
$4,266,683 |
$839,833 |
$2,399,260 |
$1,027,590 |
|
Uralla Shire Council |
$3,935,087 |
$1,627,452 |
$320,000 |
$1,227,816 |
$79,636 |
|
Urana Shire Council |
$1,337,424 |
$1,337,424 |
$346,798 |
$990,626 |
$0 |
|
Wagga Wagga City Council |
$13,152,666 |
$7,143,965 |
$1,436,500 |
$4,103,861 |
$1,603,604 |
|
Shire of Wakool |
$2,667,955 |
$2,667,955 |
$824,737 |
$1,843,218 |
$0 |
|
Walcha Council |
$3,728,502 |
$1,424,328 |
|
$1,163,357 |
$260,971 |
|
Walgett Shire Council |
$7,967,911 |
$3,554,749 |
$973,505 |
$2,486,127 |
$95,117 |
|
Warren Shire Council |
$4,210,725 |
$2,419,500 |
$459,887 |
$1,313,820 |
$645,793 |
|
Warringah Council |
$2,382,131 |
$2,382,131 |
$587,891 |
$1,794,240 |
$0 |
|
Warrumbungle Shire Council |
$9,950,753 |
$4,191,610 |
$1,086,802 |
$3,104,808 |
$0 |
|
Waverley Council |
$1,840,787 |
$777,467 |
$203,110 |
$402,094 |
$172,263 |
|
Weddin Shire Council |
$4,100,020 |
$2,807,508 |
$450,876 |
$1,279,277 |
$1,077,355 |
|
Wellington Council |
$2,349,021 |
$2,349,021 |
$614,000 |
$1,735,021 |
$0 |
|
Wentworth Shire Council |
$8,181,974 |
$4,888,593 |
$794,522 |
$2,504,881 |
$1,589,190 |
|
Willoughby City Council |
$2,471,155 |
$1,578,655 |
$282,334 |
$770,125 |
$526,196 |
|
Wingecarribee Shire Council |
$7,459,901 |
$4,703,509 |
$688,817 |
$2,327,618 |
$1,687,074 |
|
Wollondilly Shire Council |
$5,517,358 |
$4,287,308 |
$602,595 |
$1,721,513 |
$1,963,200 |
|
Wollongong City Council |
$10,111,110 |
$6,278,076 |
$664,156 |
$3,154,842 |
$2,459,078 |
|
Council of the Municipality of Woollahra |
$1,834,043 |
$1,433,421 |
$200,311 |
$572,252 |
$660,858 |
|
Wyong Shire Council |
$3,648,147 |
$3,648,147 |
$731,777 |
$2,916,370 |
$0 |
|
Yass Valley Council |
$5,435,941 |
$2,863,456 |
$318,881 |
$1,696,108 |
$848,467 |
|
Young Shire Council |
$1,626,870 |
$1,626,870 |
|
$1,626,870 |
$0 |
|
State Subtotal: |
$892,843,907 |
$515,575,142 |
$97,332,289 |
$280,391,701 |
$137,851,152 |
|
VIC |
Alpine Shire Council |
$4,850,592 |
$2,139,629 |
$540,846 |
$1,513,456 |
$85,327 |
Ararat Rural City Council |
$9,647,174 |
$4,665,874 |
$1,053,576 |
$3,010,060 |
$602,238 |
|
City of Ballarat |
$9,630,554 |
$7,527,033 |
$1,051,761 |
$3,004,876 |
$3,470,396 |
|
Banyule City Council |
$4,090,794 |
$2,015,566 |
$440,560 |
$1,265,949 |
$309,057 |
|
Bass Coast Shire Council |
$6,085,863 |
$4,312,740 |
$424,780 |
$2,028,618 |
$1,859,342 |
|
Baw Baw Shire Council |
$11,504,672 |
$8,775,287 |
$1,341,445 |
$3,834,886 |
$3,598,956 |
|
Bayside City Council |
$2,313,901 |
$1,808,490 |
$252,703 |
$721,971 |
$833,816 |
|
Benalla Rural City Council |
$6,276,339 |
$4,043,717 |
$685,436 |
$1,958,310 |
$1,399,971 |
|
City of Boroondara |
$3,650,281 |
$2,107,968 |
$398,650 |
$1,138,941 |
$570,377 |
|
Brimbank City Council |
$7,287,580 |
$4,587,142 |
$795,883 |
$2,273,833 |
$1,517,426 |
|
Buloke Shire Council |
$10,073,547 |
$7,749,621 |
$1,112,046 |
$3,143,095 |
$3,494,480 |
|
Campaspe Shire Council |
$18,743,129 |
$9,895,931 |
$2,046,953 |
$5,848,133 |
$2,000,845 |
|
Cardinia Shire Council |
$10,720,697 |
$6,095,793 |
$1,170,816 |
$3,345,000 |
$1,579,977 |
|
Casey City Council |
$9,708,695 |
$6,754,359 |
$1,060,295 |
$3,121,394 |
$2,572,670 |
|
Central Goldfields Shire Council |
$4,967,897 |
$2,655,218 |
$542,548 |
$1,550,000 |
$562,670 |
|
Colac Otway Shire Council |
$11,406,247 |
$4,678,063 |
$1,245,686 |
$3,317,025 |
$115,352 |
|
Corangamite Shire Council |
$14,644,370 |
$9,248,746 |
$1,599,324 |
$4,569,261 |
$3,080,161 |
|
City of Darebin |
$3,999,638 |
$1,828,328 |
$436,804 |
$1,247,000 |
$144,524 |
|
East Gippsland Shire Council |
$20,204,911 |
$10,757,847 |
$2,235,877 |
$6,274,949 |
$2,247,021 |
|
Frankston City Council |
$4,713,595 |
$3,054,562 |
$627,500 |
$1,571,196 |
$855,866 |
|
Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning |
$173,651 |
$173,651 |
$88,000 |
$84,998 |
$653 |
|
Gannawarra Shire Council |
$8,742,840 |
$5,673,285 |
$1,118,576 |
$2,727,896 |
$1,826,813 |
|
Glen Eira City Council |
$2,637,440 |
$1,775,958 |
$288,037 |
$822,920 |
$665,001 |
|
Glenelg Shire Council |
$14,367,742 |
$8,402,620 |
$1,524,428 |
$4,482,948 |
$2,395,244 |
|
Golden Plains Shire Council |
$8,700,695 |
$6,215,592 |
$760,210 |
$2,714,745 |
$2,740,637 |
|
City of Greater Bendigo |
$14,534,687 |
$7,014,854 |
$1,587,345 |
$4,535,037 |
$892,472 |
|
City of Greater Dandenong |
$6,171,593 |
$4,752,845 |
$674,005 |
$1,925,628 |
$2,153,212 |
|
The Greater Geelong City Council |
$13,837,665 |
$8,917,790 |
$1,511,223 |
$4,317,556 |
$3,089,011 |
|
City of Greater Shepparton |
$13,544,336 |
$10,585,958 |
$1,479,188 |
$4,225,996 |
$4,880,774 |
|
Hepburn Shire Council |
$6,400,815 |
$4,235,481 |
$754,633 |
$2,123,313 |
$1,357,535 |
|
Hindmarsh Shire Council |
$6,953,746 |
$4,492,408 |
$776,428 |
$2,152,244 |
$1,563,736 |
|
Hobsons Bay City Council |
$3,055,290 |
$1,723,653 |
|
$953,296 |
$770,357 |
|
Horsham Rural City Council |
$9,114,891 |
$5,230,190 |
$1,093,445 |
$2,843,980 |
$1,292,765 |
|
Hume City Council |
$8,980,294 |
$6,165,082 |
$980,745 |
$2,801,985 |
$2,382,352 |
|
Indigo Shire Council |
$7,353,831 |
$4,907,587 |
$824,700 |
$2,287,650 |
$1,795,237 |
|
Kingston City Council |
$5,367,424 |
$3,614,232 |
$586,181 |
$1,674,715 |
$1,353,336 |
|
Knox City Council |
$4,658,116 |
$2,542,118 |
$508,717 |
$1,453,400 |
$580,001 |
|
Latrobe City Council |
$10,913,411 |
$5,270,014 |
$1,191,862 |
$3,405,144 |
$673,008 |
|
Loddon Shire Council |
$15,348,980 |
$8,421,379 |
$1,737,700 |
$4,789,108 |
$1,894,571 |
|
Macedon Ranges Shire Council |
$8,986,885 |
$4,695,000 |
$1,000,000 |
$2,805,000 |
$890,000 |
|
Manningham City Council |
$3,398,479 |
$2,288,415 |
|
$1,060,374 |
$1,228,041 |
|
Mansfield Shire Council |
$4,151,182 |
$2,397,946 |
$453,354 |
$1,295,230 |
$649,362 |
|
Maribyrnong City Council |
$2,121,897 |
$1,408,014 |
$231,734 |
$662,063 |
$514,217 |
|
Maroondah City Council |
$3,315,779 |
$1,396,691 |
$362,119 |
$1,034,572 |
$0 |
|
City of Melbourne |
$2,993,575 |
$2,015,766 |
$326,930 |
$934,040 |
$754,796 |
|
Melton City Council |
$7,050,343 |
$3,629,145 |
$769,974 |
$2,177,937 |
$681,234 |
|
Mildura Rural City Council |
$16,575,279 |
$9,556,753 |
$1,810,201 |
$5,171,731 |
$2,574,821 |
|
Mitchell Shire Council |
$7,533,774 |
$4,243,993 |
$908,846 |
$2,350,575 |
$984,572 |
|
Moira Shire Council |
$16,398,649 |
$9,703,262 |
$1,767,698 |
$5,235,233 |
$2,700,331 |
|
City of Monash |
$5,088,629 |
$2,913,461 |
$555,733 |
$1,587,728 |
$770,000 |
|
Moonee Valley City Council |
$2,956,335 |
$1,990,335 |
$359,578 |
$922,000 |
$708,757 |
|
Moorabool Shire Council |
$8,044,506 |
$5,761,552 |
$878,547 |
$2,510,005 |
$2,373,000 |
|
Moreland City Council |
$4,067,899 |
$2,671,976 |
$444,259 |
$1,269,244 |
$958,473 |
|
Mornington Peninsula Shire Council |
$10,500,564 |
$4,424,153 |
$862,467 |
$3,276,332 |
$285,354 |
|
Mount Alexander Shire Council |
$6,739,441 |
$3,377,451 |
$0 |
$2,104,114 |
$1,273,337 |
|
Moyne Shire Council |
$16,671,155 |
$10,725,760 |
$1,820,671 |
$5,201,647 |
$3,703,442 |
|
Murrindindi Shire Council |
$7,318,379 |
$3,668,102 |
$792,190 |
$2,439,457 |
$436,455 |
|
Nillumbik Shire Council |
$4,921,598 |
$2,959,121 |
$580,000 |
$1,535,612 |
$843,509 |
|
Northern Grampians Shire Council |
$11,812,233 |
$7,341,878 |
$1,437,540 |
$3,685,591 |
$2,218,747 |
|
City of Port Phillip |
$1,781,789 |
$914,190 |
$219,012 |
$380,608 |
$314,570 |
|
Pyrenees Shire Council |
$9,047,372 |
$5,734,226 |
$988,071 |
$2,822,913 |
$1,923,242 |
|
Borough of Queenscliffe |
$231,274 |
|
|
|
|
|
South Gippsland Shire Council |
$15,308,996 |
$9,881,314 |
$1,671,908 |
$4,776,633 |
$3,432,773 |
|
Southern Grampians Shire Council |
$13,014,197 |
$8,422,561 |
$1,521,299 |
$3,787,273 |
$3,113,989 |
|
Stonnington City Council |
$1,804,986 |
$970,655 |
$55,000 |
$607,722 |
$307,933 |
|
Strathbogie Shire Council |
$9,405,800 |
$3,961,962 |
$1,027,215 |
$2,934,747 |
$0 |
|
Surf Coast Shire |
$6,358,732 |
$4,235,035 |
$694,442 |
$1,984,019 |
$1,556,574 |
|
Swan Hill Rural City Council |
$9,231,774 |
$4,653,630 |
$980,000 |
$2,880,450 |
$793,180 |
|
Towong Shire Council |
$6,145,352 |
$3,534,978 |
$617,635 |
$1,917,441 |
$999,902 |
|
Rural City of Wangaratta |
$10,363,055 |
$4,393,871 |
$1,131,758 |
$3,233,427 |
$28,686 |
|
City of Warrnambool |
$2,964,062 |
$1,973,000 |
$324,000 |
$924,831 |
$724,169 |
|
Wellington Shire Council |
$20,352,100 |
$8,868,183 |
$1,627,000 |
$4,598,215 |
$2,642,968 |
|
West Wimmera Shire Council |
$9,992,498 |
$5,779,220 |
$1,091,289 |
$3,117,806 |
$1,570,125 |
|
Whitehorse City Council |
$3,825,868 |
$1,961,553 |
$417,826 |
$1,193,727 |
$350,000 |
|
Whittlesea City Council |
$8,366,304 |
$4,627,225 |
$145,000 |
$2,610,411 |
$1,871,814 |
|
City of Wodonga |
$3,947,467 |
$2,127,000 |
$430,000 |
$1,231,668 |
$465,332 |
|
Wyndham City Council |
$8,288,549 |
$5,595,093 |
$905,199 |
$2,600,030 |
$2,089,864 |
|
Yarra City Council |
$1,749,722 |
$780,939 |
$150,000 |
$530,939 |
$100,000 |
|
Yarra Ranges Shire Council |
$15,423,583 |
$9,623,876 |
$1,673,422 |
$4,812,386 |
$3,138,068 |
|
Yarriambiack Shire Council |
$8,495,667 |
$5,128,940 |
$925,207 |
$2,670,635 |
$1,533,098 |
|
State Subtotal: |
$652,123,651 |
$385,152,836 |
$68,506,036 |
$201,934,878 |
$114,711,922 |
|
QLD |
Aurukun Council |
$299,143 |
$288,235 |
|
$199,143 |
$89,092 |
Balonne Shire Council |
$6,456,156 |
$3,932,188 |
$705,082 |
$2,014,416 |
$1,212,690 |
|
Banana Shire Council |
$11,341,520 |
$7,033,508 |
$829,405 |
$3,538,721 |
$2,665,382 |
|
Barcaldine Regional Council |
$8,663,347 |
$3,471,233 |
$605,000 |
$2,703,093 |
$163,140 |
|
Barcoo Shire Council |
$4,474,422 |
$2,135,064 |
$488,655 |
$1,396,086 |
$250,323 |
|
Blackall-Tambo Regional Council |
$5,038,847 |
$2,110,550 |
$303,185 |
$1,572,194 |
$235,171 |
|
Boulia Shire Council |
$3,580,036 |
$2,129,298 |
$390,979 |
$1,117,024 |
$621,295 |
|
Brisbane City Council |
$74,033,898 |
$38,139,241 |
$2,258,276 |
$23,167,016 |
$12,713,949 |
|
Bulloo Shire Council |
$5,308,437 |
$2,955,690 |
$579,379 |
$1,656,311 |
$720,000 |
|
Bundaberg Regional Council |
$12,906,699 |
$6,928,020 |
$1,409,551 |
$4,027,082 |
$1,491,387 |
|
Burdekin Shire Council |
$3,987,899 |
$2,585,309 |
$435,522 |
$1,244,284 |
$905,503 |
|
Burke Shire Council |
$1,935,754 |
$341,842 |
|
|
$341,842 |
|
Cairns Regional Council |
$11,687,779 |
$9,083,994 |
$895,035 |
$4,495,829 |
$3,693,130 |
|
Carpentaria Shire Council |
$4,771,868 |
$1,925,138 |
$300,000 |
$1,488,893 |
$136,245 |
|
Cassowary Coast Regional Council |
$4,603,862 |
$2,947,265 |
$502,792 |
$1,436,473 |
$1,008,000 |
|
Central Highlands Regional Council |
$14,166,033 |
$8,452,646 |
$1,547,084 |
$4,420,011 |
$2,485,551 |
|
Charters Towers Regional Council |
$11,417,134 |
$6,636,483 |
$1,247,093 |
$3,562,313 |
$1,827,077 |
|
Cherbourg Aboriginal Shire Council |
$254,143 |
|
|
|
|
|
Cloncurry Shire Council |
$4,379,068 |
$2,369,513 |
|
$1,459,687 |
$909,826 |
|
Cook Shire Council |
$7,385,235 |
$4,132,691 |
$320,000 |
$2,304,302 |
$1,508,389 |
|
Croydon Shire Council |
$2,926,459 |
$2,287,257 |
$319,601 |
$913,098 |
$1,054,558 |
|
Diamantina Shire Council |
$3,085,359 |
$1,073,988 |
$100,000 |
|
$973,988 |
|
Doomadgee Aboriginal Shire Council |
$374,137 |
$263,671 |
|
$150,000 |
$113,671 |
|
Douglas Shire Council |
$1,595,175 |
$827,719 |
|
$497,719 |
$330,000 |
|
Etheridge Shire Council |
$4,738,602 |
$1,996,021 |
$517,507 |
$1,478,514 |
$0 |
|
Flinders Shire Council |
$5,422,467 |
$4,278,909 |
$712,533 |
$1,691,890 |
$1,874,486 |
|
Fraser Coast Regional Council |
$15,201,370 |
$9,382,590 |
$1,660,154 |
$4,743,052 |
$2,979,384 |
|
Gladstone Regional Council |
$10,244,880 |
$7,457,177 |
$1,118,852 |
$3,196,555 |
$3,141,770 |
|
City of Gold Coast |
$38,698,742 |
$23,682,491 |
$4,226,322 |
$12,074,540 |
$7,381,629 |
|
Goondiwindi Regional Council |
$7,193,267 |
$3,735,055 |
$820,650 |
$2,244,404 |
$670,001 |
|
Gympie Regional Council |
$8,611,606 |
$5,968,128 |
$594,232 |
$2,686,948 |
$2,686,948 |
|
Hinchinbrook Shire Council |
$2,462,337 |
$1,559,289 |
$50,000 |
$1,383,854 |
$125,435 |
|
Hope Vale Aboriginal Council |
$363,770 |
$238,366 |
|
$238,366 |
$0 |
|
Ipswich City Council |
$13,911,615 |
$10,873,017 |
$1,367,709 |
$4,340,630 |
$5,164,678 |
|
Isaac Regional Council |
$9,952,545 |
$6,840,455 |
$1,304,310 |
$3,105,341 |
$2,430,804 |
|
Kowanyama Aboriginal Shire Council |
$1,000,641 |
$365,874 |
|
$365,874 |
|
|
Livingstone Shire Council |
$5,637,234 |
$3,214,547 |
$615,647 |
$1,758,900 |
$840,000 |
|
Lockhart River Aboriginal Shire Council |
$918,097 |
$486,992 |
$62,995 |
$286,459 |
$137,538 |
|
Lockyer Valley Regional Council |
$5,778,847 |
$4,235,507 |
$650,000 |
$1,803,084 |
$1,782,423 |
|
Logan City Council |
$21,705,124 |
$11,162,902 |
$650,000 |
$6,772,319 |
$3,740,583 |
|
Longreach Regional Council |
$8,329,549 |
$5,083,942 |
$900,000 |
$2,598,942 |
$1,585,000 |
|
Mackay Regional Council |
$12,953,964 |
$7,872,736 |
$1,762,916 |
$3,693,625 |
$2,416,195 |
|
Mapoon Aboriginal Shire Council |
$108,595 |
$108,595 |
$32,000 |
$39,182 |
$37,413 |
|
Maranoa Regional Council |
$16,414,113 |
$9,795,371 |
$2,003,116 |
$5,121,447 |
$2,670,808 |
|
Mareeba Shire Council |
$7,271,433 |
$4,896,322 |
$794,119 |
$2,268,793 |
$1,833,410 |
|
McKinlay Shire Council |
$5,346,349 |
$3,600,644 |
$583,879 |
$1,668,140 |
$1,348,625 |
|
Moreton Bay Regional Council |
$30,709,307 |
$23,288,497 |
$3,353,789 |
$9,581,758 |
$10,352,950 |
|
Mornington Shire Council |
$699,689 |
$481,517 |
$111,626 |
$218,313 |
$151,578 |
|
Mount Isa City Council |
$6,622,660 |
$3,633,609 |
$723,266 |
$2,066,368 |
$843,975 |
|
Murweh Shire Council |
$7,623,963 |
$4,169,770 |
$602,691 |
$2,378,789 |
$1,188,290 |
|
Napranum Aboriginal Shire Council |
$506,261 |
$330,000 |
|
$330,000 |
|
|
Noosa Council |
$5,069,189 |
$2,530,306 |
$553,610 |
$1,826,696 |
$150,000 |
|
North Burnett Regional Council |
$11,589,696 |
$8,320,984 |
$468,661 |
$3,616,157 |
$4,236,166 |
|
Northern Peninsula Area Regional Council |
$1,102,839 |
|
|
|
|
|
Palm Island Aboriginal Council |
$236,499 |
$236,499 |
|
|
$236,499 |
|
Paroo Shire Council |
$6,204,606 |
$4,210,884 |
$677,609 |
$1,935,929 |
$1,597,346 |
|
Pormpuraaw Aboriginal Shire Council |
$1,551,927 |
$1,053,039 |
|
$457,039 |
$596,000 |
|
Quilpie Shire Council |
$5,509,523 |
$3,175,752 |
$601,700 |
$1,719,052 |
$855,000 |
|
Redland City Council |
$10,495,866 |
$7,067,541 |
$1,146,262 |
$3,274,865 |
$2,646,414 |
|
Richmond Shire Council |
$3,397,624 |
$2,342,109 |
|
$1,060,109 |
$1,282,000 |
|
Rockhampton Regional Council |
$9,628,428 |
$6,946,211 |
$986,878 |
$3,209,472 |
$2,749,861 |
|
Scenic Rim Regional Council |
$6,796,544 |
$4,576,550 |
$742,256 |
$2,120,621 |
$1,713,673 |
|
Somerset Regional Council |
$6,290,737 |
$3,616,331 |
$200,000 |
$1,962,802 |
$1,453,529 |
|
South Burnett Regional Council |
$10,462,897 |
$5,409,877 |
$725,000 |
$3,487,628 |
$1,197,249 |
|
Southern Downs Regional Council |
$10,015,728 |
$6,603,014 |
$971,100 |
$3,125,054 |
$2,506,860 |
|
Sunshine Coast Regional Council |
$22,406,162 |
$17,512,172 |
$2,446,996 |
$6,991,053 |
$8,074,123 |
|
Tablelands Regional Council |
$6,252,629 |
$3,041,347 |
$460,564 |
$1,962,507 |
$618,276 |
|
Toowoomba Regional Council |
$29,829,863 |
$15,711,501 |
$3,257,744 |
$9,307,359 |
$3,146,398 |
|
Torres Shire Council |
$487,074 |
$305,648 |
|
$151,975 |
$153,673 |
|
Torres Strait Island Regional Council |
$1,223,140 |
$1,223,140 |
|
$432,120 |
$791,020 |
|
Townsville City Council |
$14,348,530 |
$7,849,709 |
$567,015 |
$5,476,954 |
$1,805,740 |
|
Western Downs Regional Council |
$21,846,562 |
$12,400,085 |
$2,385,881 |
$6,816,450 |
$3,197,754 |
|
Whitsunday Regional Council |
$6,728,864 |
$3,831,768 |
$610,455 |
$2,268,951 |
$952,362 |
|
Winton Shire Council |
$6,763,168 |
$2,207,088 |
$271,000 |
$1,591,088 |
$345,000 |
|
Woorabinda Aboriginal Council |
$265,525 |
$265,525 |
|
|
$265,525 |
|
Wujal Wujal Aboriginal Shire Council |
$73,672 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
Yarrabah Community Council |
$273,271 |
$179,065 |
$0 |
$179,065 |
$0 |
|
State Subtotal: |
$651,950,000 |
$391,405,011 |
$55,527,683 |
$204,472,728 |
$131,404,600 |
|
WA |
City of Albany |
$8,647,153 |
$5,591,888 |
$819,631 |
$2,722,257 |
$2,050,000 |
City of Armadale |
$5,367,261 |
$2,776,856 |
$585,997 |
$1,696,752 |
$494,107 |
|
Shire of Ashburton |
$5,691,015 |
$2,396,961 |
$621,345 |
$1,775,616 |
$0 |
|
Shire of Augusta Margaret River |
$4,171,482 |
$2,390,125 |
$453,611 |
$1,301,514 |
$635,000 |
|
Town of Bassendean |
$940,412 |
$435,513 |
$102,674 |
$280,737 |
$52,102 |
|
City of Bayswater |
$3,142,100 |
$2,099,436 |
$343,054 |
$980,210 |
$776,172 |
|
City of Belmont |
$2,270,661 |
$1,604,540 |
$278,302 |
$678,062 |
$648,176 |
|
Shire of Beverley |
$5,854,121 |
$992,403 |
$221,840 |
$617,180 |
$153,383 |
|
Shire of Boddington |
$839,440 |
$656,140 |
$91,650 |
$261,908 |
$302,582 |
|
Shire of Boyup Brook |
$3,979,238 |
$1,823,844 |
$221,624 |
$971,795 |
$630,425 |
|
Shire of Bridgetown Greenbushes |
$3,856,184 |
$2,191,095 |
$299,259 |
$1,057,464 |
$834,372 |
|
Shire of Brookton |
$1,420,429 |
$1,079,878 |
$155,082 |
$443,179 |
$481,617 |
|
Shire of Broome |
$4,068,138 |
$2,887,271 |
$750,000 |
$1,158,960 |
$978,311 |
|
Shire of Broomehill-Tambellup |
$2,653,066 |
$1,471,533 |
$292,000 |
$827,700 |
$351,833 |
|
Shire of Bruce Rock |
$3,444,153 |
$2,272,246 |
$355,725 |
$1,016,556 |
$899,965 |
|
City of Bunbury |
$3,689,441 |
$2,270,713 |
$402,813 |
$1,151,117 |
$716,783 |
|
City of Busselton |
$7,043,854 |
$5,223,808 |
$452,813 |
$2,217,606 |
$2,553,389 |
|
Town of Cambridge |
$1,639,309 |
$933,747 |
$178,980 |
$511,470 |
$243,297 |
|
City of Canning |
$5,610,746 |
$3,363,153 |
$612,581 |
$1,750,571 |
$1,000,001 |
|
Shire of Capel |
$2,644,569 |
$1,486,338 |
$261,221 |
$746,489 |
$478,628 |
|
Shire of Carnamah |
$1,683,360 |
$876,983 |
$183,789 |
$525,214 |
$167,980 |
|
Shire of Carnarvon |
$4,909,796 |
|
|
|
|
|
Shire of Chapman Valley |
$2,156,476 |
$1,446,281 |
$240,000 |
$697,621 |
$508,660 |
|
Shire of Chittering |
$1,904,046 |
$1,904,046 |
$100,719 |
$595,847 |
$1,207,480 |
|
Shire of Christmas Island |
$1,197,280 |
$836,369 |
$131,000 |
$404,064 |
$301,305 |
|
Town of Claremont |
$446,221 |
$446,221 |
|
$446,221 |
$0 |
|
City of Cockburn |
$6,406,881 |
$3,529,076 |
$185,000 |
$1,998,968 |
$1,345,108 |
|
Cocos (Keeling) Islands Shire Council |
$493,535 |
$208,028 |
$54,000 |
$154,028 |
|
|
Collie Shire Council |
$2,504,881 |
$1,815,168 |
$243,000 |
$922,774 |
$649,394 |
|
Shire of Coolgardie |
$2,174,758 |
$782,349 |
$103,817 |
$678,532 |
$0 |
|
Shire of Coorow |
$2,254,681 |
$1,315,794 |
|
$820,195 |
$495,599 |
|
Shire of Corrigin |
$2,829,415 |
$1,776,817 |
|
$972,843 |
$803,974 |
|
Town of Cottesloe |
$443,164 |
|
|
|
|
|
Shire of Cranbrook |
$2,666,350 |
$1,876,247 |
$314,884 |
$888,782 |
$672,581 |
|
Shire of Cuballing |
$1,389,402 |
$955,585 |
$151,374 |
$300,053 |
$504,158 |
|
Shire of Cue |
$1,826,240 |
$1,422,430 |
$370,000 |
$591,731 |
$460,699 |
|
Shire of Cunderdin |
$2,150,151 |
$1,163,233 |
$234,753 |
$670,855 |
$257,625 |
|
Shire of Dalwallinu |
$4,826,014 |
$2,874,578 |
$543,700 |
$1,505,733 |
$825,145 |
|
Shire of Dandaragan |
$3,683,112 |
$2,343,406 |
$402,122 |
$1,149,142 |
$792,142 |
|
Shire of Dardanup |
$2,020,891 |
$1,500,551 |
$220,641 |
$631,466 |
$648,444 |
|
Shire of Denmark |
$2,517,026 |
$785,534 |
$151,160 |
$634,374 |
$0 |
|
Shire of Derby/West Kimberley |
$4,192,594 |
$1,995,274 |
$0 |
$1,263,085 |
$732,189 |
|
Shire of Donnybrook Balingup |
$4,691,082 |
$3,295,954 |
$102,762 |
$1,686,076 |
$1,507,116 |
|
Shire of Dowerin |
$2,278,089 |
$1,194,591 |
$248,720 |
$710,772 |
$235,099 |
|
Shire of Dumbleyung |
$2,461,815 |
$1,776,685 |
$275,000 |
$768,085 |
$733,600 |
|
Shire of Dundas |
$1,627,881 |
$1,019,887 |
|
$709,887 |
$310,000 |
|
Town of East Fremantle |
$314,552 |
$98,141 |
|
$98,141 |
$0 |
|
Shire of East Pilbara |
$10,456,138 |
$5,304,627 |
$1,640,619 |
$2,971,912 |
$692,096 |
|
Shire of Esperance |
$12,015,071 |
$7,751,542 |
$1,311,805 |
$3,748,744 |
$2,690,993 |
|
Shire of Exmouth |
$1,773,923 |
$947,147 |
$193,677 |
$553,470 |
$200,000 |
|
City of Fremantle |
$1,711,787 |
$1,160,770 |
$158,392 |
$534,084 |
$468,294 |
|
Shire of Gingin |
$3,657,023 |
$2,182,483 |
$399,340 |
$1,141,003 |
$642,140 |
|
Shire of Gnowangerup |
$2,643,043 |
$1,124,714 |
$288,576 |
$824,639 |
$11,499 |
|
Shire of Goomalling |
$1,519,096 |
$1,022,952 |
$165,855 |
$473,963 |
$383,134 |
|
City of Gosnells |
$7,150,253 |
$4,416,427 |
$886,992 |
$2,239,435 |
$1,290,000 |
|
City of Greater Geraldton |
$8,449,117 |
$6,665,632 |
$922,474 |
$2,636,151 |
$3,107,007 |
|
Shire of Halls Creek |
$4,267,498 |
$2,737,458 |
$695,000 |
$1,235,004 |
$807,454 |
|
Shire of Harvey |
$4,165,994 |
$2,456,060 |
$454,843 |
$1,299,804 |
$701,413 |
|
Shire of Irwin |
$1,420,862 |
$609,177 |
$153,300 |
$442,687 |
$13,190 |
|
Shire of Jerramungup |
$2,576,346 |
$1,469,711 |
$281,285 |
$803,829 |
$384,597 |
|
City of Joondalup |
$8,996,882 |
$6,894,923 |
$1,050,000 |
$2,807,056 |
$3,037,867 |
|
Shire of Kalamunda |
$4,751,736 |
$2,795,569 |
|
$1,482,557 |
$1,313,012 |
|
City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder |
$7,177,600 |
$3,871,587 |
$713,775 |
$2,251,927 |
$905,885 |
|
City of Karratha |
$3,934,394 |
$2,985,175 |
$398,224 |
$1,217,648 |
$1,369,303 |
|
Shire of Katanning |
$2,109,984 |
$888,322 |
$100,000 |
$788,322 |
$0 |
|
Shire of Kellerberrin |
$2,385,828 |
$1,606,604 |
$260,485 |
$744,386 |
$601,733 |
|
Shire of Kent |
$2,996,661 |
$1,744,196 |
|
$934,968 |
$809,228 |
|
Shire of Kojonup |
$4,066,715 |
$1,678,171 |
$344,852 |
$1,107,679 |
$225,640 |
|
Shire of Kondinin |
$3,147,620 |
$2,398,699 |
$412,280 |
$982,067 |
$1,004,352 |
|
Shire of Koorda |
$2,638,308 |
$1,592,688 |
$288,000 |
$823,160 |
$481,528 |
|
Shire of Kulin |
$3,498,805 |
$2,640,645 |
$456,103 |
$1,097,696 |
$1,086,846 |
|
City of Kwinana |
$2,939,043 |
$1,833,884 |
$320,885 |
$916,991 |
$596,008 |
|
Shire of Lake Grace |
$5,396,346 |
$2,641,165 |
$526,355 |
$1,746,495 |
$368,315 |
|
Shire of Laverton |
$4,175,382 |
$1,497,589 |
|
$1,211,863 |
$285,726 |
|
Shire Of Leonora |
$2,593,202 |
$1,092,213 |
$283,126 |
$809,087 |
$0 |
|
City of Mandurah |
$5,334,732 |
$4,169,840 |
$485,024 |
$1,664,455 |
$2,020,361 |
|
Shire of Manjimup |
$5,834,910 |
$3,847,394 |
$555,253 |
$1,820,511 |
$1,471,630 |
|
Shire of Meekatharra |
$4,813,130 |
$3,762,135 |
$525,497 |
$1,501,713 |
$1,734,925 |
|
City of Melville |
$4,615,244 |
$2,989,959 |
$644,263 |
$1,439,970 |
$905,726 |
|
Shire of Menzies |
$3,564,675 |
$1,573,084 |
$379,500 |
$1,086,389 |
$107,195 |
|
Shire of Merredin |
$3,562,881 |
$2,173,858 |
$388,995 |
$1,111,629 |
$673,234 |
|
Shire of Mingenew |
$1,335,157 |
$1,110,707 |
$325,189 |
$430,716 |
$354,802 |
|
Shire of Moora |
$2,939,260 |
$2,129,704 |
$320,908 |
$979,752 |
$829,044 |
|
Morawa Shire Council |
$2,353,443 |
$1,598,813 |
$270,965 |
$734,282 |
$593,566 |
|
Town of Mosman Park |
$359,230 |
$329,976 |
$39,221 |
$268,891 |
$21,864 |
|
Mt Magnet Shire Council |
$1,334,778 |
$662,262 |
$145,731 |
$416,455 |
$100,076 |
|
Shire of Mt Marshall |
$3,631,762 |
$1,972,024 |
$396,516 |
$1,133,121 |
$442,387 |
|
Shire of Mukinbudin |
$2,229,547 |
$1,501,366 |
$243,422 |
$695,626 |
$562,318 |
|
Shire of Mundaring |
$4,404,273 |
$2,409,674 |
$480,858 |
$1,374,148 |
$554,668 |
|
Shire of Murchison |
$4,135,641 |
$2,605,134 |
$396,939 |
$1,300,999 |
$907,196 |
|
Shire of Murray |
$4,588,429 |
$2,942,209 |
$365,000 |
$1,454,898 |
$1,122,311 |
|
Shire of Nannup |
$2,021,725 |
$1,352,084 |
$208,000 |
$630,785 |
$513,299 |
|
Narembeen Shire Council |
$3,360,910 |
$2,263,505 |
$366,944 |
$1,048,615 |
$847,946 |
|
Shire of Narrogin |
$1,724,069 |
$917,966 |
|
$290,554 |
$627,412 |
|
Shire of Narrogin (pre-amalgamation |
$758,137 |
$758,137 |
$196,573 |
$561,564 |
$0 |
|
City of Nedlands |
$1,268,700 |
$945,281 |
$0 |
$625,300 |
$319,981 |
|
Shire of Ngaanyatjarraku |
$5,137,669 |
$1,630,000 |
|
$1,369,415 |
$260,585 |
|
Shire of Northam |
$3,460,447 |
$1,472,116 |
$474,020 |
$850,094 |
$148,002 |
|
Shire of Northampton |
$2,979,623 |
$1,363,766 |
$320,931 |
$717,520 |
$325,315 |
|
Shire of Nungarin |
$1,273,989 |
$780,638 |
$139,094 |
$397,489 |
$244,055 |
|
Shire of Peppermint Grove |
$87,656 |
$59,027 |
$9,570 |
$27,349 |
$22,108 |
|
Shire of Perenjori |
$3,556,973 |
$2,072,415 |
$388,348 |
$1,105,611 |
$578,456 |
|
City of Perth |
$1,810,588 |
$1,024,308 |
$56,538 |
$658,690 |
$309,080 |
|
Shire of Pingelly |
$1,496,251 |
$1,027,004 |
$146,547 |
$443,435 |
$437,022 |
|
Shire of Plantagenet |
$3,629,360 |
$2,028,430 |
$410,462 |
$1,134,108 |
$483,860 |
|
Town of Port Hedland |
$3,049,202 |
$939,962 |
|
$939,962 |
$0 |
|
Shire of Quairading |
$2,368,847 |
$997,719 |
$258,631 |
$739,088 |
$0 |
|
Shire of Ravensthorpe |
$3,125,647 |
$1,316,880 |
$298,927 |
$975,211 |
$42,742 |
|
City of Rockingham |
$7,779,963 |
$3,786,588 |
$756,683 |
$2,249,464 |
$780,441 |
|
Shire of Sandstone |
$1,854,875 |
$1,300,000 |
|
$1,300,000 |
$0 |
|
Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale |
$3,510,812 |
$2,388,386 |
$417,001 |
$1,095,384 |
$876,001 |
|
Shire of Shark Bay |
$1,830,708 |
$571,187 |
|
$571,187 |
$0 |
|
City of South Perth |
$1,736,366 |
$929,436 |
|
$553,816 |
$375,620 |
|
City of Stirling |
$9,289,498 |
$6,687,195 |
$994,400 |
$2,898,354 |
$2,794,441 |
|
City of Subiaco |
$921,028 |
$548,264 |
$95,000 |
$287,364 |
$165,900 |
|
City of Swan |
$11,713,770 |
$8,523,106 |
$1,155,499 |
$3,412,177 |
$3,955,430 |
|
Shire of Tammin |
$1,231,154 |
$883,542 |
$134,417 |
$384,125 |
$365,000 |
|
Shire of Three Springs |
$1,881,360 |
$782,334 |
$0 |
$757,334 |
$25,000 |
|
Shire of Toodyay |
$2,331,113 |
$1,644,600 |
$272,414 |
$784,253 |
$587,933 |
|
Shire of Trayning |
$1,937,707 |
$1,409,644 |
$211,559 |
$604,571 |
$593,514 |
|
Shire of Upper Gascoyne |
$3,971,025 |
$2,562,039 |
$400,802 |
$1,212,038 |
$949,199 |
|
Town of Victoria Park |
$1,493,688 |
$718,218 |
$163,081 |
$483,000 |
$72,137 |
|
Shire of Victoria Plains |
$2,694,405 |
$1,483,631 |
$228,983 |
$701,196 |
$553,452 |
|
City of Vincent |
$1,587,423 |
$950,509 |
$92,615 |
$574,183 |
$283,711 |
|
Shire of Wagin |
$2,051,428 |
$1,381,422 |
$223,975 |
$640,053 |
$517,394 |
|
Shire of Wandering |
$950,030 |
$720,235 |
$101,095 |
$298,812 |
$320,328 |
|
City of Wanneroo |
$10,753,098 |
$8,003,281 |
$1,174,023 |
$3,355,001 |
$3,474,257 |
|
Shire of Waroona |
$1,666,601 |
$1,059,207 |
$188,000 |
$519,985 |
$351,222 |
|
Shire of West Arthur |
$2,531,854 |
$1,072,495 |
$233,520 |
$799,711 |
$39,264 |
|
Shire of Westonia |
$2,136,286 |
$1,321,768 |
$189,240 |
$666,528 |
$466,000 |
|
Shire of Wickepin |
$2,160,915 |
$1,411,857 |
$254,657 |
$674,212 |
$482,988 |
|
Shire of Williams |
$1,288,472 |
$680,128 |
$84,405 |
$417,588 |
$178,135 |
|
Shire of Wiluna |
$3,513,297 |
$1,169,348 |
$80,000 |
$1,089,348 |
$0 |
|
Shire of Wongan-Ballidu |
$3,353,698 |
$2,098,184 |
$383,668 |
$1,046,365 |
$668,151 |
|
Shire of Woodanilling |
$1,290,913 |
$786,595 |
$150,736 |
$410,528 |
$225,331 |
|
Shire of Wyalkatchem |
$1,863,254 |
$1,225,970 |
$203,430 |
$581,341 |
$441,199 |
|
Shire of Wyndham East Kimberley |
$9,541,777 |
$2,567,331 |
$684,278 |
$1,473,552 |
$409,501 |
|
Shire of Yalgoo |
$2,427,729 |
$1,369,761 |
|
$757,459 |
$612,302 |
|
Shire of Yilgarn |
$4,968,658 |
$2,896,876 |
$542,478 |
$1,550,237 |
$804,161 |
|
Shire of York |
$2,593,903 |
$1,238,082 |
$296,248 |
$809,306 |
$132,528 |
|
State Subtotal: |
$470,640,815 |
$276,095,442 |
$43,412,959 |
$142,705,076 |
$89,977,407 |
|
SA |
City of Adelaide |
$1,603,187 |
$1,253,155 |
|
$1,253,155 |
$0 |
Adelaide Hills Council |
$4,689,854 |
$3,298,091 |
|
$2,178,919 |
$1,119,172 |
|
Adelaide Plains Council |
$1,649,654 |
$736,518 |
|
$514,689 |
$221,829 |
|
Alexandrina Council |
$3,758,639 |
$2,229,111 |
$410,000 |
$1,172,691 |
$646,420 |
|
Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara |
$977,789 |
|
|
|
|
|
The Barossa Council |
$3,010,362 |
$2,421,253 |
$396,793 |
$939,228 |
$1,085,232 |
|
District Council of Barunga West |
$1,263,742 |
$831,643 |
$137,960 |
$428,010 |
$265,673 |
|
The Berri Barmera Council |
$1,408,096 |
$1,097,475 |
$142,369 |
$439,435 |
$515,671 |
|
The City of Burnside |
$3,138,627 |
$2,113,573 |
$342,636 |
$979,247 |
$791,690 |
|
Campbelltown City Council (SA) |
$3,509,162 |
$1,477,941 |
$383,087 |
$1,094,854 |
$0 |
|
District Council of Ceduna |
$2,902,304 |
$1,645,851 |
$316,837 |
$905,516 |
$423,498 |
|
City of Charles Sturt |
$7,767,538 |
$6,071,612 |
$847,963 |
$2,423,462 |
$2,800,187 |
|
Clare and Gilbert Valleys Council |
$2,540,477 |
$1,985,802 |
$277,338 |
$792,625 |
$915,839 |
|
District Council of Cleve |
$2,446,614 |
$1,307,568 |
$267,091 |
$763,341 |
$277,136 |
|
District Council of Coober Pedy |
$301,066 |
|
|
|
|
|
Coorong District Council |
$4,345,860 |
$2,622,236 |
$474,427 |
$1,355,903 |
$791,906 |
|
District Council of the Copper Coast |
$2,073,931 |
$1,348,564 |
$226,500 |
$647,064 |
$475,000 |
|
District Council of Elliston |
$2,684,678 |
$1,361,728 |
$293,080 |
$837,615 |
$231,033 |
|
The Flinders Ranges Council |
$1,962,059 |
$1,346,516 |
$0 |
$1,105,000 |
$241,516 |
|
District Council of Franklin Harbour |
$1,565,044 |
$922,405 |
|
$488,292 |
$434,113 |
|
Town of Gawler |
$1,982,752 |
$1,344,209 |
$220,000 |
$624,078 |
$500,131 |
|
Gerard Reserve Council Inc |
$130,277 |
|
|
|
|
|
Regional Council of Goyder |
$4,431,795 |
$2,687,394 |
$490,910 |
$1,382,714 |
$813,770 |
|
District Council of Grant |
$2,184,862 |
$1,474,134 |
$249,055 |
$681,674 |
$543,405 |
|
City of Holdfast Bay |
$2,457,496 |
$1,191,489 |
$268,279 |
$766,736 |
$156,474 |
|
Kangaroo Island Council |
$2,600,498 |
$1,495,255 |
$283,171 |
$811,351 |
$400,733 |
|
District Council of Karoonda East Murray |
$2,221,611 |
$1,565,028 |
$71,000 |
$693,140 |
$800,888 |
|
District Council of Kimba |
$1,983,547 |
$1,375,743 |
$216,539 |
$618,864 |
$540,340 |
|
Kingston District Council |
$1,647,810 |
$1,227,814 |
$179,887 |
$514,115 |
$533,812 |
|
Light Regional Council |
$2,704,921 |
$1,813,097 |
$273,692 |
$856,405 |
$683,000 |
|
District Council of Lower Eyre Peninsula |
$2,694,193 |
$1,634,288 |
$294,118 |
$840,585 |
$499,585 |
|
District Council of Loxton Waikerie |
$4,792,836 |
$2,322,980 |
$523,222 |
$1,495,358 |
$304,400 |
|
Maralinga Tjarutja |
$349,829 |
$282,479 |
$63,864 |
$109,146 |
$109,469 |
|
City of Marion |
$6,244,762 |
$3,961,651 |
$681,725 |
$1,948,358 |
$1,331,568 |
|
Mid Murray Council |
$4,237,204 |
$2,038,302 |
$462,400 |
$1,322,002 |
$253,900 |
|
City of Mitcham |
$4,960,537 |
$2,707,904 |
$541,530 |
$1,547,680 |
$618,694 |
|
The District Council of Mount Barker |
$3,603,921 |
$1,644,325 |
|
$885,494 |
$758,831 |
|
City of Mount Gambier |
$2,584,596 |
$1,723,896 |
$280,000 |
$806,391 |
$637,505 |
|
District Council of Mount Remarkable |
$2,385,577 |
$1,426,465 |
$260,428 |
$744,297 |
$421,740 |
|
The Rural City of Murray Bridge |
$3,102,488 |
$2,772,981 |
$309,421 |
$1,034,161 |
$1,429,399 |
|
Naracoorte Lucindale Council |
$3,176,877 |
$1,837,994 |
$346,812 |
$991,182 |
$500,000 |
|
Nipapanha Community Incorporated |
$129,713 |
$60,000 |
$20,000 |
$40,000 |
|
|
Northern Areas Council |
$2,632,410 |
$1,974,493 |
$287,374 |
$821,307 |
$865,812 |
|
City of Norwood Payneham and St Peters |
$2,389,331 |
$1,011,553 |
$260,837 |
$745,469 |
$5,247 |
|
City of Onkaparinga |
$15,329,196 |
$7,881,392 |
$1,690,000 |
$5,109,726 |
$1,081,666 |
|
District Council of Orroroo/Carrieton |
$1,670,266 |
$996,860 |
$100,000 |
$603,460 |
$293,400 |
|
District Council of Peterborough |
$1,610,589 |
$519,811 |
$0 |
$519,811 |
$0 |
|
City of Playford |
$8,232,481 |
$3,745,507 |
$845,000 |
$2,568,523 |
$331,984 |
|
City of Port Adelaide Enfield |
$8,768,994 |
$6,333,205 |
$957,290 |
$2,735,915 |
$2,640,000 |
|
Port Augusta City Council |
$1,911,918 |
$1,494,479 |
$208,719 |
$596,516 |
$689,244 |
|
City of Port Lincoln |
$1,486,779 |
$1,001,207 |
$162,308 |
$463,873 |
$375,026 |
|
Port Pirie Regional Council |
$2,823,643 |
$1,528,359 |
|
$880,973 |
$647,386 |
|
City of Prospect |
$1,341,138 |
$564,843 |
$146,409 |
$418,434 |
$0 |
|
Renmark Paringa Council |
$1,433,117 |
$935,298 |
$161,554 |
$516,000 |
$257,744 |
|
District Council of Robe |
$707,153 |
$476,201 |
$77,198 |
$220,631 |
$178,372 |
|
Roxby Downs Council |
$524,527 |
$338,986 |
$56,276 |
$163,652 |
$119,058 |
|
City of Salisbury |
$10,120,992 |
$5,054,159 |
$1,104,883 |
$3,105,014 |
$844,262 |
|
South Australian Local Government Grants Commission |
$39,022,000 |
$21,931,016 |
$4,260,000 |
$11,975,172 |
$5,695,844 |
|
Southern Mallee District Council |
$2,633,768 |
$2,029,323 |
$270,591 |
$821,732 |
$937,000 |
|
District Council of Streaky Bay |
$3,034,534 |
$1,767,126 |
$331,273 |
$946,769 |
$489,084 |
|
Tatiara District Council |
$3,665,644 |
$2,714,578 |
$411,083 |
$1,143,677 |
$1,159,818 |
|
City of Tea Tree Gully |
$7,365,695 |
$5,384,348 |
$850,000 |
$2,298,088 |
$2,236,260 |
|
Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure |
$28,149,767 |
$16,061,787 |
$2,900,622 |
$8,849,439 |
$4,311,726 |
|
District Council of Tumby Bay |
$1,728,168 |
$1,163,761 |
$188,660 |
$539,187 |
$435,914 |
|
Corporation of The City of Unley |
$2,487,583 |
$1,047,686 |
$271,563 |
$776,123 |
$0 |
|
City of Victor Harbor |
$1,739,702 |
$1,171,528 |
$189,918 |
$542,786 |
$438,824 |
|
Wakefield Regional Council |
$3,474,740 |
$2,716,082 |
$379,329 |
$1,084,113 |
$1,252,640 |
|
Corporation of the Town of Walkerville |
$497,273 |
$209,435 |
$0 |
|
$209,435 |
|
Wattle Range Council |
$3,538,825 |
$1,707,109 |
$463,000 |
$1,104,109 |
$140,000 |
|
City of West Torrens |
$4,000,163 |
$2,693,738 |
$436,688 |
$1,248,046 |
$1,009,004 |
|
The Corporation of The City of Whyalla |
$2,588,500 |
$1,279,768 |
$282,500 |
$807,608 |
$189,660 |
|
Wudinna District Council |
$2,592,329 |
$1,281,150 |
$282,998 |
$808,802 |
$189,350 |
|
Yalata Community Inc |
$281,651 |
$118,620 |
$30,747 |
$87,873 |
|
|
District Council of Yankalilla |
$990,158 |
$667,821 |
$109,135 |
$308,928 |
$249,758 |
|
Yorke Peninsula Council |
$5,319,948 |
$4,163,256 |
$580,766 |
$1,659,816 |
$1,922,674 |
|
State Subtotal: |
$288,299,767 |
$172,622,955 |
$28,848,855 |
$91,504,349 |
$52,269,751 |
|
TAS |
Break O'Day Council |
$4,038,781 |
$2,096,985 |
$441,016 |
$1,260,137 |
$395,832 |
Brighton Council |
$1,459,648 |
$1,140,874 |
$159,387 |
$455,423 |
$526,064 |
|
City of Burnie |
$3,209,081 |
$2,507,831 |
$350,000 |
$1,001,263 |
$1,156,568 |
|
Central Coast Council |
$5,236,254 |
$3,000,000 |
$570,000 |
$1,630,000 |
$800,000 |
|
Central Highlands Council |
$3,639,952 |
$2,845,020 |
$397,466 |
$1,135,698 |
$1,311,856 |
|
Circular Head Council |
$4,959,104 |
$3,852,497 |
$541,511 |
$1,547,286 |
$1,763,700 |
|
Clarence City Council |
$4,362,246 |
$2,996,000 |
$500,000 |
$1,365,000 |
$1,131,000 |
|
Derwent Valley Council |
$2,203,234 |
$953,594 |
$266,165 |
$687,429 |
$0 |
|
Devonport City Council |
$3,429,026 |
$2,190,453 |
$374,434 |
$1,069,888 |
$746,131 |
|
Dorset Council |
$4,866,139 |
$2,738,164 |
$531,360 |
$1,518,279 |
$688,525 |
|
Flinders Council |
$1,804,731 |
$1,041,536 |
$129,901 |
$566,932 |
$344,703 |
|
George Town Council |
$2,287,984 |
$1,015,675 |
$241,339 |
$723,428 |
$50,908 |
|
Glamorgan Spring Bay Council |
$2,399,800 |
$1,426,098 |
$299,923 |
$833,784 |
$292,391 |
|
Glenorchy City Council |
$3,962,533 |
$2,668,289 |
$432,690 |
$1,236,346 |
$999,253 |
|
Hobart City Council |
$4,706,486 |
$2,140,940 |
$570,091 |
$1,466,466 |
$104,383 |
|
Huon Valley Council |
$3,971,831 |
$2,565,509 |
$575,000 |
$1,239,247 |
$751,262 |
|
Kentish Council |
$3,104,832 |
$1,673,152 |
$339,033 |
$968,735 |
$365,384 |
|
King Island Council |
$2,384,380 |
$1,509,775 |
$260,363 |
$743,949 |
$505,463 |
|
Kingborough Council |
$3,653,232 |
$1,538,757 |
$398,916 |
$1,139,841 |
$0 |
|
Latrobe Council |
$2,032,751 |
$1,368,813 |
$221,967 |
$634,237 |
$512,609 |
|
Launceston City Council |
$7,963,227 |
$4,248,562 |
$605,000 |
$2,484,598 |
$1,158,964 |
|
Meander Valley Council |
$5,958,125 |
$4,261,237 |
$650,600 |
$1,858,988 |
$1,751,649 |
|
Northern Midlands Council |
$6,139,291 |
$4,021,930 |
$753,617 |
$2,136,758 |
$1,131,555 |
|
Sorell Council |
$2,614,942 |
$1,166,264 |
$285,540 |
$815,884 |
$64,840 |
|
Southern Midlands Council |
$4,019,596 |
$2,314,341 |
$497,230 |
$1,254,151 |
$562,960 |
|
Tasman Council |
$1,303,851 |
$841,016 |
$0 |
$492,213 |
$348,803 |
|
Waratah-Wynyard Council |
$3,584,145 |
$2,309,657 |
$391,372 |
$1,118,285 |
$800,000 |
|
West Coast Council |
$1,766,669 |
$1,184,039 |
|
$578,736 |
$605,303 |
|
West Tamar Council |
$3,338,129 |
$2,245,508 |
$364,508 |
$1,041,000 |
$840,000 |
|
State Subtotal: |
$104,400,000 |
$63,862,516 |
$11,148,429 |
$33,003,981 |
$19,710,106 |
|
NT |
Alice Springs Town Council |
$2,985,720 |
$2,985,720 |
$690,000 |
$961,416 |
$1,334,304 |
Barkly Regional Council |
$848,473 |
$202,072 |
|
$202,072 |
$0 |
|
Belyuen Community Government Council |
$103,721 |
$62,357 |
|
$32,357 |
$30,000 |
|
Central Desert Regional Council |
$2,689,539 |
$1,429,764 |
$378,224 |
$804,864 |
$246,676 |
|
Coomalie Community Government Council |
$1,269,500 |
$944,313 |
|
$944,313 |
$0 |
|
City of Darwin |
$5,722,913 |
$3,744,691 |
$0 |
$3,744,691 |
$0 |
|
Department of Transport |
$42,041,860 |
$23,771,199 |
$4,715,518 |
$12,935,728 |
$6,119,953 |
|
East Arnhem Regional Council |
$3,659,660 |
$1,660,697 |
$69,106 |
$1,141,656 |
$449,935 |
|
Katherine Town Council |
$1,972,214 |
$1,220,708 |
$215,081 |
$615,247 |
$390,380 |
|
Litchfield Council |
$7,929,143 |
$5,476,333 |
$824,000 |
$2,473,553 |
$2,178,780 |
|
Local Government Association of the Northern Territory |
$4,426,513 |
$2,721,586 |
$802,411 |
$1,380,881 |
$538,294 |
|
MacDonnell Regional Council |
$3,099,831 |
$2,244,707 |
$338,054 |
$967,014 |
$939,639 |
|
City of Palmerston |
$2,468,376 |
$1,340,468 |
$269,190 |
$770,028 |
$301,250 |
|
Roper Gulf Regional Council |
$2,506,383 |
$1,442,198 |
$273,335 |
$781,884 |
$386,979 |
|
Tiwi Islands Regional Council |
$3,039,920 |
$2,052,147 |
|
$963,570 |
$1,088,577 |
|
Victoria Daly Regional Council |
$2,667,416 |
$1,578,735 |
$74,223 |
$830,976 |
$673,536 |
|
Wagait Shire Council |
$173,620 |
$104,529 |
|
$101,734 |
$2,795 |
|
West Arnhem Regional Council |
$3,691,594 |
$2,517,355 |
$0 |
$1,151,618 |
$1,365,737 |
|
West Daly Regional Council |
$2,095,464 |
$829,000 |
$0 |
$829,000 |
$0 |
|
State Subtotal: |
$93,391,860 |
$56,328,579 |
$8,649,142 |
$31,632,602 |
$16,046,835 |
|
ACT |
Transport Canberra and City Services Directorate |
$51,350,000 |
$40,223,669 |
$8,641,527 |
$17,116,649 |
$14,465,493 |
State Subtotal: |
$51,350,000 |
$40,223,669 |
$8,641,527 |
$17,116,649 |
$14,465,493 |
|
|
Allocation |
|
|||||
Payments to Date |
Payments 2014-2015 |
Payments 2015-2016 |
Payments 2016-2017 |
Payments 2017-2018 |
Payments 2018-2019 |
||
Program Life Total: |
$3,205,000,000 |
$1,901,266,150 |
$322,066,920 |
$1,002,761,964 |
$576,437,266 |
|
|
NSW |
$892,843,907 |
$515,575,142 |
$97,332,289 |
$280,391,701 |
$137,851,152 |
|
|
VIC |
$652,123,651 |
$385,152,836 |
$68,506,036 |
$201,934,878 |
$114,711,922 |
|
|
QLD |
$651,950,000 |
$391,405,011 |
$55,527,683 |
$204,472,728 |
$131,404,600 |
|
|
WA |
$470,640,815 |
$276,095,442 |
$43,412,959 |
$142,705,076 |
$89,977,407 |
|
|
SA |
$288,299,767 |
$172,622,955 |
$28,848,855 |
$91,504,349 |
$52,269,751 |
|
|
TAS |
$104,400,000 |
$63,862,516 |
$11,148,429 |
$33,003,981 |
$19,710,106 |
|
|
NT |
$93,391,860 |
$56,328,579 |
$8,649,142 |
$31,632,602 |
$16,046,835 |
|
|
ACT |
$51,350,000 |
$40,223,669 |
$8,641,527 |
$17,116,649 |
$14,465,493 |
|
|
Climate Change
(Question No. 702)
Ms McGowan: asked the Minister for the Environment and Energy, in writing, on 20 March 2017:
(1) In respect of the Government announcing that his department would begin the review of Australia's climate change policies in February 2017 with the release of a discussion paper, was the discussion paper released in February; if not, when will it be released for public consultation.(2) Has funding been set aside for the review; if so, what sum.(3) Will the review assess the impact of policies on (a) jobs, (b) investment, (c) trade competitiveness, (d) households, and (e) regional Australia; if so, will this involve public consultation.(4) How will the Government ensure close engagement with business and the community in regional Australia.(5) Will public hearings be held; if so, where.(6) Will consultation be done internally or by a consultant.(7) What is the timeline for consultation.(8) How will the outcomes be reported.(9) Will the report be made public.
Mr Frydenberg: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
1. On 24 March 2017 the Department of the Environment and Energy released a discussion paper for public consultation.
2. The review is being conducted by the Department of the Environment and Energy as a part of its normal departmental operations. There is no separate budget allocation.
3. As stated in the terms of reference, the review:
a. will consider the impact of policies on jobs, investment, trade competitiveness, households and regional Australia.
b. will involve close engagement with business and the community, beginning with consultation on a discussion paper. As at Wednesday 17 May 2017, the Department has met with over 200 stakeholders across electricity, the built environment, resources, waste, transport and land and agriculture, and the community sectors.
4. The discussion paper invited submissions from business and the community.
5. The general public was able to contribute to the review by making a submission on the discussion paper.
6. The Department has conducted the consultation with the business and the community sectors regarding the review.
7. The public were invited to make a submission on the discussion paper by 5 May 2017. The Department continues to consult with business and the community regarding the review.
8. How the Government communicates the outcomes of the review has yet to be determined.
9. How the Government communicates the outcomes of the review has yet to be determined.
National Landcare Programme
(Question No. 712)
Mr Katter asked the Minister for the Environment and Energy, in writing, on 22 March 2017:
(1) Will he consider the establishment of a successor program to the National Landcare Programme?(2) Will he ensure that funding for any successor program is no less than that made available under the existing National Landcare Programme.(3) Will he ensure that funding provided for special purposes, such as water quality in the Great Barrier Reef, is not at the expense of other national priorities.(4) Does he support the vital work of the 56 regional Natural Resource Management (NRM) bodies in Australia, and will he ensure these bodies continue to have a central role in the delivery of any future Government investment into Landcare and natural resources management.(5) Does he acknowledge that the comparatively small NRM organisations operating over huge regions in the Australian rangelands have special needs that need to be recognised in program design if they are to remain viable and effective.
Mr Frydenberg: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) Yes, I have considered the next phase of the National Landcare Program. The Australian Government has been investing in natural resource management programs for over
25 years, enabling communities to take practical action towards improving their local environment and achieving sustainable agriculture outcomes.
(2) In the 2017-18 Budget, the Government allocated $1.1 billion from the National Heritage Trust over seven years from 2016-17 to 2022-23 for continuation of the National Landcare Program.
(3) The National Landcare Program will address a range of environmental, sustainable agriculture and Indigenous outcomes.
(4) I recognise the important contribution of regional organisations and local communities in assisting Australia to realise its national environmental priorities and international obligations. The Government has announced ongoing investment in regional delivery.
(5) I recognise the challenges of operating in rural and regional Australia. These challenges are being considered in the design elements of the Program going forward.
Department of Education and Training: Infrastructure projects
(Question No. 713)
Mr Albanese asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Training, in writing, on 27 March 2017:
(1) What infrastructure projects were fully or partially funded by the department between December 2007 and September 2013.(2) For each project, (a) on what date (i) was the funding approved, (ii) did construction commence, (iii) was the facility commissioned, (b) what sum of Commonwealth funding was provided, (c) what was the total final cost, and (d) from what program was the funding sourced.
Mr Hunt: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) See attachment A which provides the name of the program, the total number of projects for that program and the total Commonwealth funding for that program. To include details around the specific projects within each program would involve an unreasonable diversion of department resources.
(2) To attempt to provide this level of detail would involve an unreasonable diversion of departmental resources.
ATTACHMENT A
Name of Program |
Total Number of Projects |
Total Commonwealth Funding (GST excl.) |
During which Financial Year/s was the funding provided? |
Building the Education Revolution |
23,564 |
$16.2 billion* |
2008–09 to 2011–12 |
Capital Grants Program (CGP) for Non‑government Schools |
1,602 |
$797.0 million* |
2008 to 2013 |
CGP for Government Schools |
127 |
$327.4 million* |
2008 |
Investing in Our Schools Program (IOSP) |
1,691 |
$134.0 million* |
2008 |
Local Schools Working Together |
26 |
$55.8 million* |
2008–09 to 2011–12 |
Local Community Centres |
5 |
$1.1 million* |
2008–09 to 2011–12 |
Trade Training Centres in Schools Program |
375 |
$1.2 billion* |
2008–09 to 2012–13 |
Budget Based Funded - Improved Standards Measure |
50 |
$32.22 million |
2010–13 |
Child Care Services Support Program (Long Day Care Capital Funding Exceptional Circumstances Grant) |
8 |
$1.68 million |
2010–11 to 2012–13 |
Education Investment Fund |
150 |
$4,207.5 million |
2008–09 to 2017–18 |
* Total Commonwealth funding includes a component of administration funding.
Notes:
CGP is based on calendar years; project numbers can vary over time due to projects being created, withdrawn or merged.
CGP for Government Schools ceased as a separate program at the end of 2008. Since 2009, capital funding for government schools has been included in Australian Government recurrent funding paid to states and territories.
IOSP is based on calendar years.
Infrastructure funding was also provided under the now lapsed National Partnership Agreement on Indigenous Early Childhood Development for Children and Families Centres (CFC). This has not been reported as portfolio responsibility now rests with the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.