The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
COMMITTEES
Petitions Committee
Report
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (10:01): Today, I present the 11th report of the Petitions Committee for the 45th Parliament. I also present with this report, a corrigenda to report No. 10, which was presented on 22 May 2017.
PETITIONS
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (10:01): I present one petition:
Middle East
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the genocide being carried out on religious minorities in the Middle East.
We therefore ask the House to:
Recognise and classify Islamic state as a group controlling large parts of Syria and Iraq that is intentionally engaged in genocidal actions and other serious crimes against Christians, Yazidis and other minorities;
To take all possible measures to assist victims of genocide in Syria and Iraq and to affirm the Government's duty under Article 1 of the United Nationals 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, to prevent and punish the crime under international law.
from 6626 citizens
Petition received.
PETITIONS
Responses
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (10:01): I present seven ministerial responses to petitions previously presented.
PETITIONS
Statements
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (10:01): This one petition that I presented today has over six and a half thousand signatures collected and signed by hand. I would like to thank all members of the public who took time out to engage in this important parliamentary process.
I will continue to provide updates to the House on the work of the Petitions Committee.
Thank you.
BILLS
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Relieving Domestic Violence Victims of Debt) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Wilkie.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (10:03): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
In essence, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (relieving Domestic Violence Victims of Debt) Bill 2017 would allow for Centrelink debts to be waived in situations where the debtor has been subjected to domestic violence.
The current legislation allows for a debt to be waived in 'special circumstances', but it is thought that this is vague and may not apply to some situations where a debtor has been a victim of domestic violence. The bill aims to create an explicit category of debt waiver which would assist people in these circumstances and create a clearer legislative basis for Centrelink to waive those debts.
The bill would also allow for Centrelink debts to be waived when a debtor has, due to being subject to domestic violence, either made a false representation or failed to comply with some other provision of the law.
There is a gap, regrettably, in the existing legislation which makes this necessary. Centrelink can currently waive a debt when it results from a person not 'knowingly' making a false statement. But this does not take into account people who have been forced to make false statements as a result of domestic violence, even when they may have known it to be false—for example, being forced to misrepresent earnings by an abusive partner. This bill would allow for debts to be waived in all of these circumstances.
I am sure all of us in this place have heard many stories about domestic and family violence. I was very moved by a particular episode quite recently, and I must say it was the final straw that stirred me to act today. I met a woman who had been in a violent relationship for nearly 20 years, during which time she was physically, sexually, emotionally and financially abused on a daily basis. I am pleased to say that this woman and her five children have now escaped that abusive relationship and partner. But she has been left with a $23,000 Centrelink debt, and she has this debt because when she was in that relationship she falsely claimed that she was single in order to receive more money from Centrelink. But she was forced to do this by her abusive partner, and to make other false claims to Centrelink. But, in essence, the woman did not receive the money, had no control of the money and had no option but to do what her abusive partner demanded that she do. Regrettably, though, because there was fraud involved in this episode, the current legislation does not allow for that debt to be waived, and this unfortunate soul has a debt of $23,000 which she somehow has to repay. I think we would all agree that that is a terrible situation and something we really should look to remedy.
The story I recount here about that woman is of course the tip of the iceberg. I am sure we have all heard all sorts of stories from our constituents about the troubles they have endured or still endure. I am mindful that domestic and family violence can be perpetrated by men against women and by women against men. But the overwhelming majority of acts of domestic violence and sexual assault are perpetrated by men against women, and that is a fact. When I talk about domestic violence I am using the broader definition, which I think is widely accepted these days, as being any act of gender based violence that causes or could cause physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering, including threats of harm or coercion in public or private life. As this definition makes clear, violence is not always physical but also includes psychological, economic, emotional and sexual violence and abuse and a wide range of controlling, coercive and intimidating behaviour.
To illustrate this point I would like to read some facts and figures published by Our Watch, and I will quote directly from their website. They are facts and figures to do with violence perpetrated by men against women, because, as I said, it is a fact that the overwhelming majority of acts of domestic violence are perpetrated by men against women. In fact, if this bill was to receive the support of the parliament and become law, the overwhelming majority of people who would benefit from this reform would be women. But I acknowledge that there would also be some men to obtain some benefit from it. So, some facts and figures: on average, at least one woman a week is killed by a partner or former partner in Australia; one in three Australian women have experienced physical violence since the age of 15; one in five Australian women has experienced sexual violence; one in four Australian women has experienced physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner; one in four Australian women has experienced emotional abuse by a current or former partner; women are at least three times as likely as men to experience violence from an intimate partner; and women are five times as likely as men to require medical attention or hospitalisation as a result of intimate partner violence and five times as likely to report fearing for their lives.
Of these women who experience violence, more than half have children in their care. Violence against women is not limited to the home or intimate relationships. Every year in Australia over 300,000 women experience violence, often sexual violence, from someone other than a partner. Eight out of 10 women aged 18 to 34 were harassed on the street in the past year. Young women, age 18 to 24, experience significantly higher rates of physical and sexual violence than women in older age groups. There is growing evidence that women with disabilities are more likely to experience violence. And Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women experience both far higher rates and more severe forms of violence compared with other women.
I go through those figures to remind us of the problem we have had in this country. In fact, it would be fair to say that in this country we still have a family and domestic violence crisis. Now, I do acknowledge that the government has been acting in this space, and I credit the government for that. In fact, the Turnbull government has announced some $200 million of extra investment to try to do something about domestic and family violence.
That does suggest to me that there should be some interest from the government in supporting this bill today. I would say to the government that the community expects us to act in a collegiate way and to address problems that can be addressed. This can be easily addressed. For the want of support of this bill and simple legislative change, at virtually no significant cost to the federal budget, we could bring relief to those people in the community—often women—who, through no fault of their own, are now lumbered with often very large Centrelink debts. This is something that can be supported. It certainly has the support of many legal professionals and many people who work in the community. No less than the Australian Law Reform Commission, in fact, would like to see reform in this space.
It is consistent with government policy, it is at virtually nil cost and it is supported by the community and by the legal profession. It would be consistent with what the community is expecting us to achieve in this place. That is, to come together, take ideas from wherever they can be found and improve those ideas, if they can be improved. I am sure my bill could be improved in some way. Some of the bright sparks in the government could probably suggest some amendments to make it even more effective. But that is what the community is expecting us to do. The scale of this issue in the community and the scale of domestic and family violence is almost unfathomable. In a country like ours, a lawful and learned country, it is unfathomable that there can be so much domestic and family abuse going on.
It is surprising that we still have a gap in our legislation like this: quite simply if there is any Centrelink debt and fraud is involved in some way, then that debt cannot be waived—in law, it cannot be waived. Surely, we should give the secretary of the department the ability to waive debt. Think of that woman: 20 years in an abusive relationship—physical, sexual, emotional and financial abuse. Through fear of her life, she was claiming money from Centrelink which went straight to her former abusive partner for him to spend and enjoy. But now not has she only got to overcome the emotional difficulties of that path but she has got to pay the debt.
Please, let the government and opposition get behind this bill. I would love to see it progressed. Thank you.
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (10:13): I second this bill, acknowledge the proactive and solution-based approach of my colleague and seek the government's support for it. I reserve my right to speak.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ) (10:13): 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.
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 LAMB (Longman) (10:14): We have all just recently heard the Treasurer announce his budget, and I am sure many people across Australia were keenly listening to hear how the Turnbull government will help ease their cost of living pressures. Unfortunately, watching the government's decisions and action since the election, many people are not surprised by what was announced in the Treasurer's speech—or, actually, by what was not announced. There were no measures to make day-to-day life easier for any ordinary Australian. For the record, I do not consider millionaires to be ordinary Australians. There were no measures to curb the housing affordability crisis and there was no mention of protecting their take home pay.
I can see that the Treasurer could not make reference to every bill that his party wishes to pass. But you would think that he would not entirely avoid referring to the measures that will leave 700,000 working Australians worse off. In fact, 35,000 of those come from the Moreton Bay region, from places like Strathpine and Redcliffe and Burpengary and Morayfield, where I come from. You might even think we would have heard of measures from this government that look to counter that devastating cut to workers' take-home pay and the loss to their local economy. But no—there is not one single mention. Do you know why? It is because the Treasurer and his government know that the cut to penalty rates is a really bad idea. They know that it is bad for workers. They know that it is bad for the economy. They know that nobody but big business wants these cuts. So they are avoiding bring it up at all.
But what any government should be doing is listening, not avoiding hearing what the country wants. They should be listening. While this government have been sticking their fingers in their ears, Labor has been listening. Labor's Australian Jobs Task Force committee has been listening to workers. They have been listening to unions, employers and stakeholders to hear and see the problems that the Australian jobs environment places on them. We have taken the task force all over Australia to get the most representative view, from metropolitan cities to regional towns, as far north as Cairns and as far south as Launceston, as far east as the Moreton Bay region and, as parliament rose last week, we travelled over to Western Australia. We have heard concerns regarding everything from the exploitation of workers to labour hire companies being used to undermine wages, issues about how apprentices are being treated and how workers are defining themselves as lucky because they get paid the award rate of pay. That is what 'lucky' is to some people.
What stood out most, what we heard people stress over the most, has been their fear of cuts to their take-home pay and what these cuts would do to the lives of people many of whom are already struggling to get by. It is just devastating. We have heard from people who have been at the mercy of a phone call putting their entire lives on hold hoping to secure a shift of work. These are people who need their penalty rates, who rely on them just to pay the bills. We have heard from an oncology nurse in the health sector. She told us that after a weekend of working over Easter—and she lost a patient—she could not walk into her own home and enjoy her family celebrating Easter. Crying, she turned to me and said, 'Why am I having this conversation? Why am I worrying that I'm next?' This is an oncology nurse who just finished doing a shift over a weekend.
People see right through these cuts. They know that there is more at play than simply to bring the Sunday rates in line with what is offered on Saturdays. Otherwise, why aren't Saturday rates being lifted to meet in the middle? It is obvious that this is a ploy to keep the hard-earned take-home pay of Australians, their money, in the pockets of their employers. The Australian people see right through it. It is not hard to see where the government's priorities lie, when they offer big businesses and multinationals a tax cut while cutting penalty rates. They are lowering the HECS payment threshold. They are setting out on a witch-hunt against welfare recipients, raising the cost to attend university and very, very quickly dismissing any call to raise the minimum wage.
So I say, Prime Minister Turnbull, take your fingers out of your ears and listen. Listen to the people of Australia, the people you swore to work for and stand by. Because, Prime Minister, let me tell you something: when you listen you hear things. Listen to these workers and hear their stories. Hear how cruel these cuts are and how tough life will be, when, on 2 July, you are celebrating your anniversary as elected Prime Minister. You are celebrating by cutting their take-home pay.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (10:18): I began my career as a builder, but in the 16 years before my election to this place I was a barrister. There is one very important principle that you learn when you practice law. That is the independence of the judiciary. The value of a court or arbitrator is that they can act independently. Where there are important questions to be decided and there are strong views on both sides, an independent umpire can weigh the evidence and make a decision without fear or favour. That is why the opposition leader set up the Fair Work Commission review into penalty rates. But now he presents us with this bill to consider. How his tune has changed.
The explanatory memorandum to this bill contains the sort of Orwellian double-think that only this Labor Party under this leader are capable of in modern politics—a Labor Party that is not a shadow of the party it was under prime ministers Hawke and Keating. The explanatory memorandum claims, seemingly with a rhetorical straight face: 'The bill preserves the independence of the Fair Work Commission.' Independence? Not only is it a bill that dictates to the Fair Work Commission what it can and cannot decide and that tells the Fair Work Commission that it can do whatever it wants as long as it is exactly what the Labor Party tells it to do; it is a bill that retrospectively reverses a decision the commission has already independently made. The blinding hypocrisy of the provisions contained in this bill is only matched by that of its mastermind proponent.
I do not know why I am even surprised. This is exactly the kind of top-down, nanny-knows-best world that the Labor Party are desperate to create: a Human Rights Commission that tells us exactly what to think and what to say, a workplace relations system where the only voice to be heard and dictated by is the CFMEU's and a Fair Work Commission that is legally obliged to agree with the Labor Party. That is the future that would face us if Labor were in government.
I believe that this bill contains at its heart a contradiction just as fundamental as the contradiction inherent in preserving an authority's independence by shackling it to Labor Party ideology. The new clause 135A prohibits any modern award which would be likely to reduce the take-home pay of any employee covered by the award and retrospectively annuls any decision after 22 February that would have the same effect. I have spoken to a great many business owners in my electorate, in Caloundra, Mooloolaba, Maleny and throughout the Fisher electorate, and they all tell me the same thing—that is, the cripplingly high penalty rates they are required to pay on Sundays and public holidays prevent them from opening, limit the staff they can employ and reduce the hours they can offer. They tell me that without these penalty rates they could offer more work to local people and would do so with great enthusiasm. So what would the effect of the new clause 135A be? It would be to prevent employees under an award being offered more hours and therefore more take-home pay. It would prevent unemployed Australians from becoming employees under the award and getting any pay at all. The effect of this clause would be to limit the income and opportunities available to potentially millions of Australians.
Why would the Labor Party want to keep small businesses closed on a Sunday? My colleagues in the House and in another place have given us the abundant evidence that makes the answer clear. It is because their union mates want to be able to go on handing big business a competitive advantage by giving away their workers' penalty rates while potential competitors have to pay more. With small businesses shackled, the unions can preserve their membership, grow their income and maintain their own power base. This bill, just like another well-known Bill, tells Australians to their faces that it will stand up for their pay and then gets stuck into selling them out to preserve union power. It is an absolute disgrace.
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (10:24): We on this side of the House believe it is our absolute duty to protect this country's most vulnerable people. These include people on the lowest wages, people whose employment is precarious, people working under casual contracts, people working on weekends, people working part time and people who are underemployed. They are some of the lowest paid workers in this country. We on this side of the House see it as our duty to ensure that we put in fair legislation that protects these people so that they can live a dignified life.
Those on the opposite side, as we have just heard, are washing their hands of any assistance to these people. We have just heard the previous speaker talk about how this will create more employment. By cutting people's wages, you may create more employment. We could halve their wages and create more employment. We could pay them a plate of food once a week, if you like, and that would create more employment. But to cut people's wages is the most simplistic way that you can create work. I would really like to see the figures after six months and see if one single job has been created. People who give up their weekends, their family time and the things that others take for granted should be compensated for it. There is no other way about it. When you leave your family on a Sunday because you have to go and work, you should be compensated for it—that is only fair. This government obviously does not think that is fair.
This is the first time in the history of Australia where we have seen a cut in wages—in other words, wages going backwards. I am sure that the intention of the Fair Work Commission, when it was set up, was not to cut people's wages; it was there to intervene, look at different situations and perhaps to be an umpire and come up with some findings. It was never the intention of anyone who was helping set up that Fair Work Commission for it to one day cut people's wages, but that is what it has done—without any negotiations, without any discussions and without any enterprise bargaining agreement being put into place that perhaps would give increased hourly rates in return for some cut in penalty rates. There was no negotiation; it was just a straight out cut, which will hurt people. We on this side oppose it.
There is an opportunity, though, for the government—that opportunity is here before us today in legislation put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. That opportunity for the government is to support the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017 and ensure that we put in a mechanism to protect people's wages so that they do not get a pay cut but continue to be able to earn enough money to pay their bills and put food on the table when they leave their families and serve us on weekends and after hours. Firstly, this bill would stop retail and hospitality workers' wages being cut as a result of the decision handed down, as we know, by the Fair Work Commission. Secondly, it would stop the Fair Work Commission cutting award wages and penalty rates in other industries, by constraining the discretion of the commission. That is why this bill is so important.
Wage growth in this country is at record lows—the ABS figure is 1.9 per cent. This is the lowest wage growth since 1990s, when the ABS began tracking it, but estimates are that it is likely to be the slowest rate of pay rise since the last recession. So what we have here is a government that keeps banging on about jobs and growth and yet is willing to stand back and allow approximately 700,000 of our lowest paid workers to cop, on average, a $77 a week wage cut. This will hurt people. The McKell report into penalty rates estimates that workers in South Australian rural communities could lose up to $66.2 million per annum with a partial abolition of penalty rates in the retail and hospitality sectors. In my electorate of Hindmarsh, we recently held a meeting of Labor's Australian jobs taskforce to hear about the devastating impacts that penalty rate cuts could have on low-paid workers in my electorate. Figures show that there over 12,586 people—or one in six workers—in my electorate work in the retail, pharmacy, food and accommodation industries, and these people will be hurt. (Time expired)
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (10:29): I move:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"The House is of the opinion that the bill does not fully address the issue of penalty rates, and:
(1) notes that:
(a) when the Leader of the Opposition was Secretary of the Australian Workers' Union (AWU), his union negotiated enterprise agreements that reduced or removed Sunday penalty rates, including for:
i. around 780 workers at Big W in North Queensland, whose penalty rates were 50% under the award;
ii. around 129 workers at Target Country in North Queensland, whose penalty rates were 50% under the award;
iii. around 119 workers at Just Jeans in Queensland, whose penalty rates were 50% under the award;
iv. around 101 workers at Rydges Tradewinds in Cairns, who got no penalty rates at all;
v. around 480 workers at Cleanevent, who lost all their penalty rates;
(b) when the Labor Party was in Government, penalty rates were reduced in 2010 following its award modernisation process, including for many workers in the hospitality, restaurants, fast food and clubs sectors;
(c) presently, millions of workers – including staff at multinational and large businesses, such as Woolworths, Coles, Bunnings, McDonalds, KFC, Pizza Hut, Officeworks, Target, Kmart and the Langham Hotel – receive Sunday penalty rates that are below the award, thanks to enterprise agreements negotiated with large unions, including the AWU and the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association (SDA);
(d) the proposed Sunday rate of 150 per cent in the retail industry that has been determined by the Fair Work Commission is the same as the Sunday rate in a range of retail industry agreements negotiated by the AWU and the SDA;
(e) small businesses that compete with large retail and fast food chains, and wish to employ staff on a Sunday, must currently employ them at higher rates than those large chains; and
(2) agrees that any legislation to address cuts in penalty rates under awards must also address cuts in penalty rates under union negotiated enterprise agreements".
I have some sympathy for the stance being taken by the Leader of the Opposition. I do not like to hear of any workers taking a forced cut in pay, and that goes for those who work Sundays at Coles and Woolies as well as those who work at small businesses across the country.
The Leader of the Opposition claims that he wants to protect workers from the independent Fair Work Commission, but I must ask how he can turn a blind eye to the penalty rate cuts that he allowed big business to get away with when he was the Australian Workers Union boss. To turn a blind eye to such union approved penalty rate cuts would be unfair not only to workers but also to small businesses, who struggle to compete on Sundays.
In Mackay there is a Coles supermarket that is one block away from a family owned grocery store. Coles gets away with paying their workers 150 per cent of regular penalty rates because the unions allowed it, whereas the family owned store is required to pay 200 per cent. How can that be fair? If those opposite are against the independent Fair Work Commission eroding the take home pay of retail, hospitality, tourism and fast food workers who work on a Sunday, they should also be against the reduction of take home pay for the vast majority of workers in those industries who have had their penalty rates cut due to the collusion between big unions and big business.
It is not fair that a Coles worker or a Woolies worker takes home less pay on a Sunday than someone who works at a local independent grocery store. It is not fair that local small mum and dad businesses have to pay more on Sundays than major corporates. If you truly support fairness, you will reinstate the pay of workers who had their Sunday penalty rates cut.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the amendment seconded?
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (10:33): I second the motion. I think this is an incredibly important aspect. We have to look at penalty rates across the board, rather than just a single sector. So I thank the member for Dawson for moving the motion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Dawson has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question is that the amendment be agreed to; however, the time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate will be adjourned and resumption of the debate will be made an order for the next day of sitting.
MOTIONS
Coal
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (10:34): I move:
That this House recognises:
(1) the long term global demand predictions for coal in providing reliable, secure and affordable baseload power;
(2) that power prices in Queensland have reached record highs, including up to $14,000 MW/H in January 2017;
(3) that the high cost of electricity supply in North Queensland has been a disincentive to business investment for many years, putting a strain on Australian businesses and households;
(4) that Australia has an abundance of high quality coal, better than in many countries around the world; and
(5) that Australia should utilise this natural advantage by maintaining its prominent role in providing secure, reliable and affordable energy, and that in order to do this, there should be a coal fired power station built in North Queensland.
In North Queensland, as in most regional areas, people are acutely aware of two things: there is no life without water and there is no industry without energy—not just any energy but energy that is affordable and reliable. Coal is a resource and the affordable energy that it supplies, predominantly through electricity, has revolutionised the way that human beings live their lives. It has underpinned the Industrial Revolution that lifted millions of people out of poverty and enabled today's very comfortable lifestyles. Coal powered us through the industrial age. It powered us through two world wars. Throughout human history, each wave of technology has introduced greater efficiencies, more prosperity and more leisure time—and more time to indulge in non-productive but culturally and ideologically driven pursuits, such as environmental activism.
One day a new form of energy creation will be developed—no doubt a more efficient and more reliable form of energy, with fewer or perhaps even zero emissions, that will make coal obsolete. We do not know what that technology will be, but we do know that it is not the current solar or wind options on which the world economy is currently wasting millions and millions and perhaps even billions of taxpayer dollars. We know in Australia at least that the Greens and the green movement will never allow the clean power of nuclear generation. Our next stable energy generating technology has not yet been invented, and it will not be invented if scientists cannot access affordable and reliable power. Until that new technology is invented, it is critical that we maintain industry, our economy and, in particular, regional economies, as well as our lifestyles with the technology that we know we can rely on.
In Central and North Queensland, affordability of energy supply is already a threat to industry and to jobs. The largest aluminium smelter in Australia, Rio Tinto's Boyne Island Aluminium Smelter in Gladstone in the electorate of the member for Flynn, who is going speak on this motion later, is slashing more than100 jobs and about 80,000 tonnes of annual production—worth about $200 million to our national economy—because it cannot source affordable power from state government providers. The inner city greenies will be patting themselves on the back for pulling off a trifecta in Gladstone—cutting down big business, reducing industry and killing productive jobs in a place that does not affect the Greens, of course. No doubt they are impressed with South Australia's hit to business and jobs with their renewable energy folly. Queensland Labor is now trying to follow suit. The state Labor government has set a 50 per cent renewable energy target that we know will only increase energy costs and decrease energy reliability. Affordable energy is essential to maintain, much less grow, any economy. That fact was recognised in the North and Northwest Queensland Sustainable Resource Feasibility Studies report commissioned by the previous Labor government at the behest of the member for Kennedy, who I note is going to speak on this motion as well. The report was on baseload power in North Queensland and the Dalrymple agricultural scheme. Key findings in that report were that a major coal-fired power station would put strong downward pressure on electricity prices, with a potential $836 million social cost benefit gain. That report found that such a station would be commercially viable if such a coal-fired power station were built at the mouth of the coalmine in the Galilee Basin. That report was commissioned by those opposite. I would like to hear the member for Herbert's view on this, because that report was done by Townsville Enterprise Pty Ltd and commissioned by the last Gillard Labor government.
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 meet demand. The state is effectively going to run out of power. Building extra capacity in the system is an imperative. If we are to learn anything from South Australia, that extra capacity cannot come at the expense of reliability and affordability. Coal is both reliable and affordable. New clean coal technology means ultra-supercritical generators can use a pulverized coal combustion system operating at a higher temperature and pressure to generate a reliable supply, with up to 50 per cent fewer emissions than conventional coal-fired power stations. Utilising that new technology to meet demand and replace older high emissions technology is an obvious choice. We are blessed with coal in North Queensland. The solution to the problem of unaffordable power is coal-fired power generation. We must have it if we want industries and jobs to grow, particularly in the North.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms Landry: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (10:39): I welcome this motion from the member for Dawson because it again demonstrates his and his party's economic ignorance and ignorance about the true facts of the energy industry both in this country and globally. Here are some facts: internationally, coal consumption peaked in 2013 and has actually declined every year since. Fact: wholesale electricity prices have doubled under this government. Look not just at Queensland, Mr Deputy Speaker, but across the entire NEM, where wholesale energy prices have doubled since this mob came to power in 2013. Fact: the National Electricity Market rules are hopelessly out of date.
This motion comes at an interesting time because the House energy committee had some important testimony before us last Friday. We had the government's own regulators—the Australian Energy Market Commission and the Australian Energy Market Operator—provide the following testimony. The government's own regulators said that higher prices are not leading to increased investment. Why? In their own words, because of the massive uncertainty that is in the marketplace due to this government's failure on climate change and energy prices policy. The government's own regulators are saying that the higher power prices are not leading to more investment because this mob have failed on energy policy.
What did the Australian Energy Market Commission call for on Friday? They called for an emissions intensity scheme. They said it is essential to unlocking investment and the cheapest way of solving the energy crisis in this country. They referred to the modelling they commissioned by the government's own favourite energy modeller, Danny Price, which found that an EIS not only would unlock $48 billion worth of investment but would lower electricity prices by $15 billion. Let me repeat that: an EIS, which this government has opposed, will lower energy prices by $15 billion, according to the government's own economic regulators. No wonder it is supported by a broad coalition, including by the New South Wales Young Nationals. The youth arm of the member for Dawson's own party is calling for an EIS, as is the Business Council of Australia, BHP, AGL, EnergyAustralia, the National Farmers' Federation, Origin Energy, Snowy Hydro, CSIRO, Energy Networks Australia, the Chief Scientist, the Climate Change Authority and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. A broad coalition of energy experts is calling for an EIS. In fact, Danny Price, the Prime Minister's own favourite energy policy expert, who wrote his policy in 2009, has stated that the Liberal and National parties are the parties of higher power prices. They are the parties of higher power prices.
The truth is that our power station fleet is very old. The average age of power stations in Victoria is 41, and in New South Wales it is 35. The four Hunter and Central Coast power stations around my electorate provide fully one-third of Australia's coal-fired power production, and they are due to retire, according to their own companies, in 2022, 2028, 2034 and 2035. We need replacements. We need investment into this sector. Investors need certainty.
The replacement is very unlikely to be new coal-fired power. That is not because of any mad greenies or environmentalists; it is because the economics of the industry are changing. According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, new coal-fired power stations will cost about $130 per megawatt hour. When you get to the pipedream of carbon capture and storage, which the member for Dawson is very interested in, you can triple that price. This is independent experts saying it will be $130 per megawatt hour for new coal. Large-scale solar photovoltaics are already at $100 per megawatt hour and new wind is at $60 per megawatt hour.
Mr Craig Kelly: Cut all the subsidies!
Mr CONROY: Without a subsidy. That is the price without a subsidy. These sources can provide reliable energy through true integration of the National Electricity Market when coupled with storage technology, whether it is pumped hydro or battery storage.
I am proud to represent a coal-fired region. My region was built on coal and coal will have a strong role into the future. But we need to be realistic. We cannot lie, which is what those members opposite are doing. We cannot perpetuate untruths that somehow coal-fired power is competitive against unsubsidised renewable energy in this country. It is just wrong. The government's own regulators have said it is wrong. The government's own regulators have said an emissions intensity scheme will lower power prices and decarbonise the grid, and that is what we should be talking about in this debate.
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Deputy Nationals Whip) (10:44): Coal continues to be the backbone of global electricity generation and still makes up 40 percent of global electricity. Because it is relatively affordable and widely available, coal remains the world's No. 1 fuel for generating electricity, producing steel and making cement. Australia is leading the way internationally in clean coal technology. Black coal from Queensland is the most energy-efficient in the world in terms of kinetic output per unit of coal burned.
Australia can and should be leading the way in developing HELE coal-fired power plants to produce more electricity with less coal at less cost. Our domestic energy supply and pricing can be supported by high efficiency, low emission coal-fired power generation technology. Around the world, over 1,200 plants are under construction achieving over 45 per cent efficiencies. Australia has none planned. How can we plan them when new investment in coal is constantly delayed?
We must ensure Australia's power supplies are affordable for the everyday household. We absolutely need to ensure businesses can remain competitive on a global scale. On a recent trip to the Pioneer Valley in my electorate of Capricornia, a sugarcane grower told me that the electricity required to pump water was costing $9 a tonne. They are considering switching to diesel. In Rockhampton, Dobinsons Spring and Suspension's power costs have tripled in 10 years. Solar installation has helped, but it is no use for early morning furnace operations. They too are considering diesel. If they cannot be competitive, they cannot afford to grow and hire more people. It is that simple. If these companies fail, jobs for working families go with them. I do not think the city greens comprehend the repercussions to both industry and the environment if businesses 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 the distorted belief they are somehow helping.
High efficiency, low emissions power plants deliver secure, affordable energy while lowering CO2 emissions. It is why these technologies are a central element of many nations' plans to meet the Paris climate change agreement. Some 725 units are operating in East Asia with a further 1,142 installations under construction or planned. As the adoption of carbon capture and storage technologies increases, these emissions savings will increase to 90 per cent. HELE coal generation offers many advantages and is the only power source to meet all of the following elements for sound energy policy: it is a low cost power source to build and operate; availability stretches 24 hours a day, every day; we have access to a high quality domestic fuel source without supply concerns; it is synchronous power not susceptible to supply interruptions and outages; and, as an established grid participant, it does not require expensive network upgrades. These technologies should be part of Australia's efforts to meet its emissions reduction targets while maintaining affordable and secure energy supply.
We learnt through the forced closure of Hazelwood coal-fired power station that we need to ensure there is sufficient, stable, baseload power available to consumers. The Queensland Labor government is denying Capricornia vital jobs and business competitiveness by labelling a clean coal-fired power station as 'not rational'. Imagine this: we build one of the world's most efficient super-critical coal-fired power stations in Northern Australia. We use some of the world's cleanest coal to generate Queensland's electricity needs. We employ hundreds of people to build them. We employ more Central Queenslanders to run them. We make some money. We use that money to build infrastructure and create more jobs. With a healthy economy, we are able to invest in even more efficient and renewable energy supplies. Australia used to be the country of innovation, forward thinking and a go-get-'em attitude. (Time expired)
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (10:49): I rise to speak on the motion put by the member for Dawson. I want to point out a few things up front. There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding. Calling coal 'clean' does not make it so. There is still the physics associated with burning coal. At best, you are only going to get to about 80 per cent efficiency, even if you put the words 'ultra-supercritical' in front of it. The members opposite need to remember that.
The member for Dawson's motion—what a cheek! This is a guy who came into parliament promising a $500 power bill cut and then puts a motion slamming power price rises in Queensland. We know that his government failed to put in place an emissions intensity scheme, which industry says would put downward pressure on power prices. In fact, just this morning the energy minister again confirmed that the Turnbull government will not be imposing an emissions intensity scheme on the power sector—an emissions intensity scheme that would send a positive signal to investors encouraging them to renew the ageing electricity infrastructure, especially in North Queensland. This is supported by the experts. They say it will cut electricity costs by up to $15 billion and will support new investment. The coalition government is about to start its fifth year in government. Under them, wholesale prices have doubled since they took office—not just in Queensland, but across the net. They can try to duck and weave, but they are ultimately responsible for these price hikes that are affecting individual customers and businesses.
The member for Dawson's motion says:
…there should be a coal fired power station built in North Queensland.
I point out to the member for Dawson there is no law preventing a coal-fired power station being built in North Queensland. You can go ahead and build it right now, if the market decides so. If the numbers stack up, investors will line up to build it. But clearly the numbers do not stack up. We had his LNP senator, Senator Canavan—I remember in his first speech Senator Canavan pointed out that he used to be a communist. We see him, the minister for resources, comrade Canavan, demanding that Australians boycott Westpac Bank because they made a commercial decision not to invest in a coalmine. This is unbelievable! The member for Dawson and comrade Canavan suggesting that the federal government should step in and now own coalmines and build coal-fired power stations. That is what he is suggesting. Maybe he is a sort of Manchurian candidate trying to change the system from within. It is unbelievable. It is a shame you were not so sympathetic when it came to the automotive industry, when they were struggling. You were not so keen to nationalise the means of production for the Holden workers in Elizabeth or down in Victoria. It is a weird thing.
The facts are that the Turnbull government has failed to deliver affordable, reliable clean energy. You have failed to have a vision to better integrate renewables into the grid. As we have heard from previous speakers, coal consumption worldwide is decreasing. We know that. But Australian households, communities and businesses are paying more because this government has not taken advantage of the latest electricity technology, especially in battery storage.
The member for Dawson should understand that. He knows that in his electorate there is great work being done in renewable energy. The Palaszczuk government has supported the establishment of a large-scale renewable industry, after Campbell Newman and Tim Nicholls shut it down. In particular, since January 2016 there has been massive investment in North Queensland. We see the commitment of over 1,000 megawatts of new large-scale renewable energy projects, most in regional Queensland. Even in Dawson we see 42 megawatts at Collinsville and 58 megawatts—
Mr Christensen: It is not in Dawson!
Mr PERRETT: It is close to Dawson. The Whitsunday Solar Farm has 58 megawatts and Collinsville Solar Farm 42 megawatts. That will obviously benefit North Queensland. There will be construction jobs, and it will double Queensland's large-scale renewable energy capacity. We know that Queensland has a renewable energy target of 50 per cent. That will drive investment in Queensland, create more jobs and it will have a cost-neutral impact on electricity prices. As people have said, battery storage technology is taking off. We have seen emissions from electricity generation decrease by 25 to 31 per cent because of this commitment by the Queensland government. We are the Sunshine State. We are halfway there, and we have more to go in terms of generating 3,000 megawatts of solar capacity just from the rooftops in Queensland. So, we need to be fair dinkum and understand that calling it clean coal does not make it so.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (10:54): I am very pleased to join this motion put forward by the member for Dawson followed by the member for Capricornia, two members in this place who actually are concerned about the workers and the constituents in their electorate and are prepared to come in here and stand up for them. Standing up for their own constituents—that is a job that we all have an obligation to do, and I will be very interested to listen to the member for Herbert's contribution to this debate, to see whether she stands up for the constituents of her electorate, like the member for Dawson and the member for Capricornia have.
The member for Dawson says in his motion that he recognises the long-term global demand predictions for coal. I have listened to members of the Labor Party during this debate and the shadow minister for climate change, who said:
The demand for thermal coal exports around the world is in rapid decline.
We have heard from member after member on that side that coal is in decline. Let us look at what the evidence is, rather than the bald-faced assertions of Labor Party members. What do the Minerals Council have to say about this story that coal is in decline? The Minerals Council said:
The value of Australia’s thermal coal exports is expected to grow by 28 per cent in 2016-17 and total $19 billion, according to official forecasts.
That is the Minerals Council. What about some other interesting groups? What about the Resources and energy quarterly? The most recent one, put out by the government department, says this about coal exports coal trade:
Global thermal coal and lignite demand is projected to increase …
Members of the Labor Party come in here during this debate and claim that coal is in decline, but it continued to increase. The report continues:
By 2022, global trade is projected to rise … from 2016 levels to 1.06 billion tonnes.
How about someone else? What do the International Energy Agency have to say about this myth that Labor are putting forward that coal is in decline? The International Energy Agency's figures, even under the new policy scenario, show that in every single year up to 2040 coal continues to increase. They are the facts.
What about the coal power stations being constructed around the world? What could be driving this increase? Let us look at a report, and this is not a report from the Minerals Council; this is a report from the Sierra Club and Greenpeace—hardly the friends of coal, and this is a report they put out to try to show that coal is somehow in decline. Their report shows—again, this is a Greenpeace report—that there are 824,531 megawatts of coal-fired power stations under active development. Let us put that in some context. We know that the Hazelwood power station that closed down was 1,600 megawatts. So, that is the equivalent of 540 Hazelwood power stations currently under active developed around the world. All these power stations are going to need coal to operate. The future for coal—no matter what anyone says, no matter what new myths anyone wants to put forward—if you look at the numbers and if you look at the statistics, there is no doubt that coal will continue to be used in record quantities for the decades to come.
We had the member for Shortland in here talking about uncertainty in investment. We heard the word 'uncertainty' at the hearings on Friday of the House energy committee. They said there is no uncertainty in wind or solar, because they can get lavish subsidies. Where the uncertainty comes from is for those who want to invest in baseload coal-fired power generations. And that is what this nation needs. That is the reason energy cost in this nation are going up—because we have had baseload coal-fired power stations closing and being replaced with intermittent and useless wind turbines. The other week, every single wind turbine in this country was producing absolutely zero energy. Wind turbines from South Australia to Tasmania to Queensland—zero, not enough to run a single light bulb. We need new coal-fired baseload power stations in this nation. (Time expired)
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (11:00): When I read this motion moved by the member for Dawson, George Christensen, I was really perplexed as to why he would move such a motion—because he is pointing out a list of energy issues that have occurred under his government and he is drawing attention to the fact that the Turnbull government has not delivered, and will not deliver, anything to address North Queensland's energy crisis. This motion is placing a huge red target on the member for Dawson about how electricity costs have reached record highs under the Abbott and Turnbull government's and how his government is not going to do anything about it in the north.
In fact, Bloomberg New Energy Finance, one of the world's most respected energy market analysis firms, has trashed the Turnbull government's coal plan. In their statement 'New coal, the most expensive form of new supply', BNEF estimated the cost of electricity from new power plants using different technologies and concluded that the Turnbull government's favoured 'ultra super-critical' coal power is more expensive than solar, gas and wind alternatives. The report states: 'If new coal were to be built in Australia, electricity prices would be substantially higher than with a combination of wind, solar and gas.'
Therefore, it beggars belief that the member for Dawson would put this motion up. The thinking people in North Queensland would prefer to burn this motion and use the energy to assist with our rising energy costs. This motion does nothing to lower the cost of energy in North Queensland. As we have just heard, it will in fact increase exorbitant prices. Does the member for Dawson honestly think that North Queenslanders can take some solace from this motion? When this government is doing nothing, the best the member can do is stand in this place and offer a more expensive alternative. The simple fact is that there is nothing—zero, zilch—in the Turnbull government's budget to address North Queensland's energy crisis. Surely if the member for Dawson cared one iota about the increased electricity costs in North Queensland he would have put up a motion and made sure that we had something delivered in the budget.
North Queensland does not want hollow words—we certainly do not want a pointless, more expensive motion here in Canberra—we want real action. As it appears that the Turnbull government has not a clue what to do to address North Queensland's energy crisis, allow me to shed some light on the subject: it is one of the largest dams in Australia, it is five times the size of Sydney Harbour and its catchment area is bigger than England. This massive resource sits right in the electorate of Dawson and it can address both the north's water security and its energy crisis—a 'two birds with one stone' solution. I am of course talking about the Burdekin Falls Dam.
Mr Katter interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): The member for Kennedy will be silent if he wants to have his turn.
Ms O'TOOLE: We have this resource because of the great foresight and commitment to North Queensland from the Hawke Labor government in the 1980s.
Mr Katter interjecting —
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you're not.
Mr Katter interjecting —
Ms O'TOOLE: The solution is built. The land is purchased and the plans are waiting and ready to be actioned.
Mr Katter interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Kennedy, this is your last warning!
Ms O'TOOLE: Now all North Queensland needs is for the member for Dawson and the Turnbull government to get on with building a hydro power station. This project will create hundreds of real jobs and immediately alleviate the cost of rising electricity prices.
I am beyond disgusted that there was nothing in the federal budget to deliver water and energy construction for North Queensland. The Turnbull government is completely out of touch with North Queensland. Whilst the north's electricity costs are higher than those in South Australia, the Turnbull government is delivering a hydro power station for South Australia. This government continues to ignore the north. Once again, the Turnbull government is completely focused on the south—and nothing for the north. Surely if it is good enough for the south it is good enough for the north.
The Burdekin Falls Dam will address the north's skyrocketing energy prices and water security issues. The answer really is quite simple: a gravity fed pipeline and hydro electricity. I challenge this government and the member for Dawson to go and meet the families, small business owners and pensioners who cannot afford to pay their electricity bills. Even large companies such as Sun Metals have been forced to address their power costs rather than walking away from the north. This government needs to understand that, if it continues to ignore the north and offers a more expensive power solution, it will be at its own peril. I warn you now: I will continue to rise in this House and hound this government until you match Labor's commitment of $200 million for a hydro power station on the Burdekin Falls Dam.
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (11:04): Listening to the three Labor speakers to this motion, the members for Shortland, Moreton and Herbert—seriously, it is like hearing three green pixies dancing at the bottom of the garden, praising the god of a 50 per cent renewable target, on behalf of the Queensland Labor government. That target is completely unrealistic. Renewables currently stand at around five per cent. They want them to reach 50 per cent. This is economic lunacy, it is morally reprehensible and in fact it is also environmentally irresponsible.
I cannot believe that the member for Herbert, who is dealing with an unemployment rate of 11.3 per cent and a youth unemployment rate which is almost twice that, can decide that she is not going to support initiatives to create jobs. What representative of this House would actually deny his or her own constituents an opportunity to create jobs? It is economic lunacy on the part of the Labor Party. Here we have an opportunity—through the creation not just of a new coal-fired power station but also, indeed, of the Adani mine—for the Galilee Basin and the broader area to create over 15,000 jobs, and what does the member for Herbert say? 'We don't want any jobs. Jobs aren't important to us.'
We also heard the member for Shortland saying that there is no longer a viable business case for coal—that renewables are taking over—'So let's just forget about coal. Australia, close the doors; it is all over. Let's go renewables.'
Mr Bandt: Hear, hear!
Mr TED O'BRIEN: We have a 'Hear, hear!' from the Green across the carpet here; if indeed he thinks that is worthy of a 'Hear, hear!' it again shows the absolute economic illiteracy of the Greens and Labor. Even if they are right, who in their right mind says to themselves: 'You know what? We've got heaps of this product. In 30 years time that product may not be worth much. We're not going to sell any more'? In actual fact, now is the time to start to leverage your core competency. Australia has deep expertise, core competency, in these fuels, in coal, and there is high demand internationally. For the Greens and Labor to suggest for a moment that Australia should not be exporting and should not be leveraging its core capability—
Mr Bandt interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): The member for Melbourne: enough!
Mr TED O'BRIEN: is nothing but a pathway to economically crippling this state and this country.
As a Queenslander, let me be very clear: I will not tolerate hearing—it does not matter whether from the Greens, Labor, GetUp! or a political activist—proposals which undermine our economic competence as a country. I will not support ideas that strip jobs from Queenslanders and that fundamentally undermine our sovereignty as a country.
We are creating a sovereign risk. What sort of message do we give to the rest of the world as importers of capital when we say no to major investment projects? But the Greens and Labor are happy with that because they do not care about jobs. They do not care about economic certainty. They do not care about our businesses being competent.
What they will say is: 'Oh, but we've got to look after the environment.' But if indeed they cared about the environment, they would be supporting the idea of a new coal-fired power station, one that is highly efficient and has low emissions. These are the sorts of ideas they should be looking at.
For the Labor Party to be rejecting the idea of a new coal-fired power station and the Adani project actually is irresponsible from an environmental point of view. Forget the garbage about the Reef—I mean, this is a mine that would be 300 kilometres inland, with over 300 conditions already placed on it. The only option, particularly for those overseas, who will be using coal, is to use dirtier coal. Do you think dirtier coal is better for the environment than cleaner coal from Australia? No. Do you believe that a new-technology coal-fired power station that delivers lower emissions is a good thing for the environment? Absolutely it is.
The Labor Party have joined the Greens, GetUp! and the political activists. They are undermining the state of Queensland and undermining our country. (Time expired)
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (11:09): I must address the remarks from the member from Townsville, the member for Herbert. If I have ever seen a solo expedition of self-annihilation it would be her contribution to this motion. Here is a town on bended knees, with the highest unemployment rates of any city in Australia; with crime rates where there are 80 cars being stolen every week—it was reported that it was every week but I think it is every month—in a city of 170,000 people; and with suicide rates that are appalling. And she was saying, 'We will have no coalmining.' That is what she was saying.
I will say one thing for the CFMEU. They have always been a little bit communistic. They hate the Labor Party, because they know the Labor Party has never really been on their side. The CFMEU want decent wages and conditions, which will make them really well-off people. That is what they aspire to: a job and a decent income. The member for Shortland is in a coalmining area that gave the Labor Party all of these seats. I think you had better start having a look at your coalmining seats, because you are losing all of them—all of them are being lost.
This country has only one source of income now, the two quarries—the coalmining quarry and the iron ore quarry. The last time I looked there was $130 billion out of $320 billion coming from two sources: an iron ore quarry and a coal quarry—and you want to close the coal quarry down and bankrupt your country. That is what you want to do. Let's have a look at the figures. I speak with authority, because I happen to have been the mines and energy minister when Queensland had the cheapest electricity in the world. We had the cheapest in the world.
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr KATTER: Mate, if it was a corrupt government, let's have more of it, because we delivered to the people of Queensland the cheapest electricity in the world. We had a reserve resource policy and took one per cent of the coal to deliver to the people of Queensland the cheapest electricity in the world.
There is one view that I share with the honourable member from the Greens, and that is the electricity prices are not the fault of the Greens and the environmental chargers. I have a graph in front of me. It is the most extraordinary graph that you will probably ever see in Australian history. In 1990 you start off with the cheapest electricity prices in the world—and I have to say that the ALP government continued on with those policies—starting off with $600 and going to $700 15 years later. What happens at that point? In 2000 we went to national competition policy, and the graph then starts to ascend. In 2007, our socialist friends completely deregulated the market in Queensland, and from then on it shoots through the roof. Our LNP friends said, 'Thank you; our rich donors can now make even more,' and they increased it even more. So it went from $600 to $700 in 15 years and over the next 12 years it went from $700 to $2,300.
I will say a few words on solar. I won one of Australia's major science projects when we put in the first standalone system in the world, and I had to justify to a fairly conservative cabinet the idea of putting in a totally solar system in the Torres Straits. Our socialist friends, for all of their ranting and raving, put diesel generators throughout the Torres Straits—so much for their fair dinkumness!
I happen to love being in my house because we have 30 varieties of birds that come up to the back of our house, and I can sit there and watch all of these varieties of birds. They are beautiful. I am fighting against wind, because there will be a 20 kilometre barrier 100 metres high taking out about 50,000 birds a year. So I am not real keen on that.
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr KATTER: There is a lady over there laughing. I will find out her name, so I can tell the House her name.
We have a proposal in North Queensland for the Hell's Gate Dam, where we will have no CO2 emissions at all. They will go into ponds and be absorbed by— (Time expired)
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (11:15): I rise today to support the member for Dawson's motion on common sense. Coal is here to stay. We rely on it for exports, electricity and jobs. In my neck of the woods, the Bowen Basin has been a dominant force in the Australian economy. We have just seen the greatest mining construction boom of our history. Despite the construction boom finishing, we are now recording record high quality thermal coal exports.
On energy production, there are three coal-fired power stations electorate of Flynn. NRG Gladstone has a 1,680 megawatt capacity and six turbines. In Biloela, CS Energy, which is government owned, control the Callide A, B and C power stations. Callide A has been decommissioned over the last couple of years, but that in itself puts 1,510 megawatts into the electricity grid. Then we have Stanwell, which is situated about 80 kilometres west of Rockhampton. It is a 1,445 megawatt capacity. These power stations have been around since the late sixties, early seventies and early eighties. They have a life expectancy of about another 10 years.
What do we do to replace electricity? It does not matter what renewables you come up with—be it 30 per cent, 40 per cent or 50 per cent. I think that is impossible to achieve; but if you were to achieve it, how are you going to supply the next 50 per cent? That is the question that we, as Queenslanders and as Australians, have got to address and address it pretty quickly. That is because you cannot build a coal fired power station overnight. We are not like China, Japan and other countries around the world, who are investing in these power stations that involve clean energy and clean coal from Australia. Ninety-five per cent of Queensland's power at the moment is sourced from coal fired power stations, and four per cent is from renewables. They have got a long, long way to go to get it up to 30 per cent, 40 per cent or even 50 per cent by 2030, which I think and you must believe is impossible.
We have now gone, as the member for Kennedy has said, from the world's cheapest power to the world's most expensive. Boyne Island Aluminium Smelter, in my electorate, has to compete on a global basis with other aluminium producers, and now it is buying power at the dearest prices in the world. The Queensland government is just making a cash cow from our high electricity prices. It is economic vandalism. Ergon and Energex are reportedly paying about $2 billion in dividends to the Queensland state government. This is what is wrecking some of our supply of cheap energy to our markets. We are chasing away overseas investors and this will continue until such a time as we lower our prices and address the energy issue which is big for not only South Australia and not only Victoria but the whole of Australia.
The Queensland Resources Council tells us that one in seven Queenslanders are employed in the mining industry. Fifty cents in every dollar in Queensland comes from mining, and 59 per cent of that is from the mining of coal in Queensland and 23 per cent is from oil and gas. There are a lot of workers in central Queensland: 6,252 full-time employees, who are well paid. They pay a total of $886 million in wages. There are 2,444 Flynn-based businesses who rely on the coal industry and resource industry, amounting to $1.7 billion in revenue.
I would like to stress a few myths being thrown around by the anti-coal lobby. Myth 1 is that world coal consumption has slumped. This is rubbish. This is false. Despite those latte-sipping people who telling us what is happening in our own neck of the woods, this is wrong. Coal consumption has gone up by 42 per cent and supply has gone up by 47 per cent— (Time expired)
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (11:20): The member for Dawson, who is moving this motion on coal, must hate his constituents, and the Queensland LNP members who have spoken in this place must hate their constituents. There are 67,000 jobs that are dependent on a healthy reef, and not once did I hear any of the Queensland LNP members speak about any of those people whose livelihoods are dependent on a healthy Great Barrier Reef. We have heard time and time again, as recently as last week, from the Great Barrier Reef authority itself, that the biggest threat to a healthy reef is climate change, is global warming and is the burning of fossil fuel. People will not fly from all the way around the world to Queensland to see a dead lump of white coral sitting in the water. People will not fly from the rest of Australia and support the tourism industries.
Mr O'Dowd: There's nothing wrong with the reef! I live on the reef!
Mr BANDT: I hear the member say that there is nothing wrong with the reef. Well, I would urge him to go and have a look at parts of the reef that are bleached beyond recognition, with scientists almost in tears saying that we have had two bleaching episodes in consecutive years. It is not good enough to just say that your own bit of the reef is okay; have a look at the whole reef. I urge members to have a look at it, because if that is what is driving this government, that tells you all you need to know.
The members must hate their constituents, because they want to push up their power prices. Wholesale power prices have doubled under the Liberal-Nationals government since they came to power. Since they abolished the carbon price, wholesale power prices have doubled. They say it is the fault of states, because they have renewable energy targets. And do you know where the worst power price rises have been? In new South Wales, where they have had Liberal governments in power—where they have had a state Liberal government and a federal Liberal government. That is where wholesale power prices have gone up the most. Why? Because this government has been more interested in waging war on renewables than on having a proper energy policy, and, as a result, power prices are going up.
We hear all this talk about the need to build these ultra-efficient so-called clean coal power stations. 'Clean coal' is a bit like dry water—it does not exist. But they come in here and tell us they will build those. At a minimum, it is $134 a megawatt hour to build one of those. Meanwhile, the cost of building a new wind power station is $75. A new solar power station, again, is coming down to around the same price, according to AGL. So, there is the option of building new power stations in Australia, which we are going to need to do, and they are coming in here and saying, 'Let's build the most expensive one'—at least $134 a megawatt hour. Add in this fantasy of carbon capture and storage and the price is going to go north of that.
So, the Liberals and Nationals must hate their constituents, if they are advocating this, because not only is it a death sentence for the reef but it is a recipe for higher power prices, it is a recipe for worse droughts and it is a recipe for cyclones that are more intense when they hit. There are only two ways we are going to see new coal-fired power stations built in this country. One is if we do what the minister, Senator Canavan, says, and that is subsidise them. Recently in the Financial Review he made an extraordinary admission, and that is that coal is a loss maker. He said that the only way we have got coalmines and coal-fired power stations off the ground is with heavy government subsidies, and he is calling for more of them. What an admission, from the minister for resources, that coal loses you money: not only is it bad for the planet; not only do coal-fired power stations, if we were to build new ones, push up power process, but they lose you money. And he is saying, instead of that, 'Let's tip in $1 billion to build the Adani coalmine.' Well, what absolute economic lunacy, as well as environmental vandalism.
But there is a second way that a new coal-fired power station might be built in this country, and that is associated with the Adani mine. We know they want to attach a coal-fired power station to the Adani mine. Well, it is no surprise at all that the LNP wants to come in here and spruik it. But what is even more concerning is that the Queensland Labor government is saying, 'Let's back the Adani coalmine and potentially a new coal-fired power station that comes with it.' There is one thing that could be done right now to kill off the Adani mine once and for all. It is what Premier Daniel Andrews did in Victoria when he came out and said if he won the next election he would rip up the East West Link contracts after the Greens pushed for that for a long time. So now should the Leader of the Opposition come out and say very, very clearly that there will be no coalmine. It is time to stop Labor's Adani mine. We need to put an end to it. There is a very simple way that that could be done—that is, the Leader of the Opposition coming out and saying he will not back it if he is in power. (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 day of sitting.
Communications Fees
Mr HAMMOND (Perth) (11:25): I 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.
No member of this House will be unfamiliar with the current state of affairs that exists where many companies now charge a fee to send an invoice, bill or statement by post in a circumstance where that customer, quite rightly, could have expected that invoice to arrive for free, as being all part of the service. Those on this side of the House are concerned that some of our nation's most vulnerable consumers—pensioners, low-income families and people with disabilities, who are least engaged in the digital and who have little meaningful choice about how they receive information—are now being asked to pay extra to receive information in a way that used to be free.
Information communication technology evolves very rapidly. The iPhone is only 10 years old; iPads have only been around for seven years. It feels like a new smart phone is released every month and its obsolescence is simply par for the course. Discmans, MiniDisc players, Walkmans, CDs, DVDs, good old-fashioned tapes all went out of fashion years ago. Now, even iTunes-style digital downloading has been displaced in favour of content streaming services like Spotify or Netflix. I do not know how many honourable members still keep a fax machine in their electorate offices. When I entered the workforce, I still remember, the fax machine was an essential piece of office kit. It got a daily workout, with the thermal paper rolling off the fax machine and under the desk. But these days, the fax machine that still sits proudly in the electorate office is very silent and is growing cobwebs by the day.
All of this technical evolution leaves people behind. Those left behind are often, very sadly, defined by age, income level, educational attainment and remoteness. Those who left the workforce before the widespread adoption of modern ICT infrastructure and those whose employment did not involve interfacing with technology are, typically, lower-paid, lower-skilled manual workers. They are families with low incomes that do not have the money to spend on ICT infrastructure for their personal use. For people with intellectual or other disabilities, it can be difficult for them to become accustomed to engaging meaningfully in the digital world. They are, also, citizens in remote communities, including Indigenous communities, who do not have ready access to digitally connected consumer goods or reliable internet services. For these people, this digital divide means so much more than simply missing out on the most recent season of House of Cards or Game of Thrones. It actually means having to pay extra to receive information, including statutorily mandated information, from utilities, financial service providers, telcos and other companies. It means paying extra to receive information that they can barely afford to pay for.
The idea is that it saves money for a corporate to email a document, so they seek to incentivise consumers to elect to receive documents electronically. This can take several forms. Some companies charge a fee to receive documents through the post—invariably, a higher fee than the actual cost of posting the document. Some companies create incentives to electing electronic communication, such as discounts and special offers. Some companies have special discount pricing structures, one of the criteria of which includes only having the option of receiving communications electronically. The obvious problem to all of this is that it leaves those vulnerable consumers on the wrong side of the digital divide with, simply, higher bills to pay. The cost of those bills all adds up.
We have reached a stage where those more vulnerable in our community are now having to pay precious dollars that they can ill afford to spend on receiving statements in the mail that, quite rightly, they should reasonably expect to receive as they previously did—that is, is free of charge. Quite frankly, the current state of affairs is misleading. At the point of sale, consumers are not informed of the entire cost of the service that is being provided to them, and it is also disproportionate. While companies charge an average of $2.50 to send documents by post, the average cost of doing so, including printing, staffing and postage, is somewhere between 94c and $1.11. Whilst some companies have exemption programs around the fee for paper billing, the process of applying for those is rarely communicated to consumers.
What is most concerning is that this sets a very dangerous precedent. Only a legislative solution can fix this problem. Only by enshrining in law a citizen's right to receive communications from a company by post for no extra fee can we deliver justice to vulnerable consumers and ensure that no-one is left behind. I commend the motion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Keogh: I second this motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (11:31): I would like to thank the member for Perth for that stroll down nostalgia lane and his discussions about fax machines. I can beat that: I still remember a time of telex machines and a time when you had to ring the operator to make an international call. Also, I would advise the member for Perth to update his viewing lists on Netflix from such violent films like House of Cards and Game of Thrones—maybe a good rom-com would help him get in touch with his feminine side!
As the member for Perth points out, the advancements in electronic communications have fundamentally shifted the way in which we communicate. Eighty-four per cent of Australians own smartphones. Between reading the news on Facebook, uploading our food and travel snaps on Instagram, and group chatting on WhatsApp, that is 16 million people who have seen their ability to communicate become faster, cheaper and continuously available. Money can be transferred with quick swipe of one's fingerprint, and medical information can be saved in an app for emergency services. We can argue the merits of giving teens access to an app that automatically deletes the content of messages once they have been received or of our stress levels rising from an inability to disconnect from our work lives when we should be focusing on our families. But, overwhelmingly, I believe these advancements have been of great benefit to us. Never before has information been so readily available to so many people. Never before has consumer choice been greater. I recognise, however, that these advancements have not benefited all equally. Our world is changing at an increasingly rapid rate, which can leave some people behind. Older Australians, who have not grown up with a computer or with the internet, let alone a smartphone, can be forgotten.
When it comes to handling our affairs, paying our bills and generally interacting with businesses, competition in the market is what gives us as consumers the choice to decide which company we buy from, whose product is better, whose customer service is better and who has the best payment conditions. Companies that used to send paper bills to their customers now give them the option to receive them via email, a change that many of us would welcome. It is quicker, more convenient, saves paper and is often cheaper. This change can be frustrating for some Australians—those who live in remote areas and do not have ready access to the internet, or the older among us who do not use a computer but want to keep handling their affairs themselves. Receiving a bill that tracks our consumption and being able to pay that bill are part of the essential services we purchase. It is our duty as a community to make sure that these consumers are allowed to conduct their interactions with businesses, and especially essential services, without being penalised.
The Minister for Small Business, the member for Riverina, has responsibility for consumer affairs in this place. As such, he met with the Keep Me Posted organisation a number of times to discuss how to address their concerns around the availability and cost of paper billing. While some of the issues may be covered by existing provisions of the Australian Consumer Law, the concerns raised must be taken seriously. The Minister for Small Business has informed me that he has asked the Treasury to look into these issues. As we speak, Treasury is reviewing how current laws, like Australian Consumer Law and the Electronic Transaction Regulations, are operating. They will report back to him soon on the extent of the problem, what improvements can be made and whether additional specific legislation is ultimately required.
Many of the Australians we are talking about are elderly and vulnerable. Money is tight, and they may not have the capacity to pay additional fees for numerous paper bills, as the member for Perth pointed out. It is important for businesses that make a commercial decision to change processing and postage fees for paper bills to make sure that this change is a true reflection of the cost borne by that business and not an inflated fee or serving as a deterrent. I am pleased to note that many businesses, particularly those that provide essential services, already provide exemptions for individuals who cannot access bills digitally or who cannot afford to pay an additional fee. Whether or not these exemptions are readily accessible or promoted to customers is something that the Minster for Small Business will look into as part of his consideration of this issue. I encourage all businesses to follow this lead and consider the needs and rights of those consumers who have no access to the internet and who rely on receiving bills in paper form. Consumers and everyday Australians who feel cost of living pressures every day are and always will be the key focus of this Liberal government.
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (11:36): Today I rise in support of this very worthy motion put forward by the shadow minister for consumer affairs and my good friend, the member for Perth, calling for legislation to protect consumers from being forced to pay additional fees to receive paper statements. For many millions of Australians the ways in which technology has entered our lives has made us more productive at work and at play, and more connected than ever, and many Australian now run their lives online. However, as easy as it is to get swept up in discovering what technology can do, it is important to not forget those who cannot share in these great technological benefits. Indeed, it is because of the pervasive nature of electronic communications in our everyday lives that we must be vigilant to watch for areas where it may either be misused or has disadvantaged members of our community.
We are becoming a nation of digital have and have-nots. There is a digital divide that we must be present to. In particular, where government moves access to it services online and diminishes access by more traditional means—not to mention the downgrading of Australia Post timeliness—it has an obligation to ensure access to those who cannot get online as well as to ensure online access is available to as many people as possible. This is a huge problem, not just in the country or remote areas but also within 20 kilometres of capital cities. Many parts of Burt cannot even get ADSL, now only a minimum standard, and some areas, like Thornlie, are also in wireless internet black spots. Worse, they are not even on the NBN rollout plan until at least 2019. Even then, they will still be afflicted by the government's 'fraudband' NBN. So we need to protect those without digital access.
Alas, as with many technological advances, the efficiencies or cost savings they allow for some come as a disadvantage to others. More and more companies, such as banks, electricity providers and telcos, are forcing their customers to adopt paperless bills, pushing customers—often without notice—into only receiving these pieces of very important correspondence electronically and only allowing hard-copy access for a not insignificant fee. The real problem is that these fees disproportionally affect our most vulnerable, because they unfairly target Australians without the skills or infrastructure to communicate effectively by electronic channels.
Often those without internet access are also those suffering from other forms of social disadvantage. We know that these groups tend to be people who are older, have lower literacy skills or might be more disadvantaged in other ways. We have studies that show that internet access decreases dramatically for older Australians, Australians facing financial difficulty or unemployment, new migrants and people speaking English as a second language. For those without internet access at home, cost and a lack of competence going online are listed as key barriers. For example, some of the most frequent users of internet terminals at the Seville Grove public library in my electric of Burt are jobseekers with no internet access available to them at home. Their opportunity to search for work is restricted to a time that they can get online at the library. It is condescending in the least to expect thousands of Australian households to conduct their financial affairs at public libraries. Coupled with this, the fees charged by companies to receive these communications by post do not represent the actual costs incurred by the company—they are instead much more.
Just last week, one of my constituents contacted me about this very issue. Mrs O'Grady wrote of her disgust at Bankwest charging her $1.25 to receive paper statements on her account. As she and her 83-year-old husband have two accounts, that is $2.50 a month just to receive a copy of their own transaction information. Mrs O'Grady's case is far from isolated: as her husband is not computer literate, e-statements are completely useless to them and to retain a service that they have received from their bank for many years they are now slugged a fee.
Australians like Mrs O'Grady should not be unfairly penalised. It should be the right of every Australian consumer to determine how their bank or utility company and other service providers communicate with them. I applaud the work of Keep Me Posted Australia, a campaign advocating every Australian's right to choose, free of charge, how they receive important financial information. KMP is a partnership of interested groups, charities, political representatives and businesses that represent Australians who are disadvantaged by a lack of choice or simply do not agree with the status quo. The government should introduce legislation that will protect a consumer's right to choose how they communicate with government and commerce—especially essential services like banks and utilities—and end the financial persecution of those in our community who choose to receive communications from companies by post for no extra fee.
As more and more Australians are online, the disadvantage of being offline grows. We cannot and should not forget those who are disadvantaged by being disconnected.
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (11:41): The week between sitting dates was a busy time for me, catching up with people living in the electorate and learning of the issues that are causing their grief. This very problem—digital change—was discussed with great emotion.
I believe that electronic technology can be a massive gain for our children—for their education and the overall future of our nation. However, the corporate push by electricity suppliers, telephone billers, other bodies and, now, the banks to charge around $2.75 for the supply of a paper account is problematic and disappointing. What on earth are they thinking? Who are the people most likely to be negatively impacted by this ridiculous, money-grabbing activity? We know: it is the older sector of our community in particular.
Let me read a letter from one of my constituents, Marlene Miller. Parts of the letter are underlined in red and written in capitals, with other parts written in red ink:
Dear Ann,
I'm writing to you with my concerns—
and many of these are health ones at first—
My husband, Thomas, and I are on a full aged pension. (We are grateful and thankful for this). However, as we are ageing, our health problems are increasing. TOM is NOW 77 years old. In the past 7 yrs, he has had "BOWEL CANCER", & recently "PROSTATE CANCER. I have recently been diagnosed with "severe OSTEOPOROSIS".
She is 74, but she has the osteoporosis effect of an 89-year-old:
I could end up in a Nursing Home …
And then she goes on about how she may be replacing her hip. During Tom's recovery from his prostate operation he fell. She had to lift him and now she has additional problems. But the most important point she brings to me in the letter is:
The "COST OF LIVING PRESSURES" ARE BECOMING increasingly MORE DIFFICULT. Eg. Health CARE COSTS, FOOD AND ESPECIALLY ELECTRICITY!!
WE RARELY IF EVER, USE OUR HEATER USUALLY GO TO BED AT 7:30pm TO KEEP WARM & SAVE COSTS!
I MAKE SOUPS OR CASSEROLES WITH LOTS OF VEGETABLES, & JUST A LITTLE MEAT.
WE HAVE BODY CORPORATE FEES TO PAY, AS WELL AS RATES, INSURANCES, PHONE, WATER RATES & NOW THE FIRE LEVY!!! BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE A COMPUTER, & CANNOT AFFORD TO RUN ONE, THE BODY CORPORATE NOW CHARGES US EXTRA MONEY TO "PROCESS" OUR PAYMENT AT THE POST OFFICE!!! I DO BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT STATED THAT "AGED PENSIONERS" WOULD BE "EXEMPTED" FROM PAYING SUCH A FEE!
Well, I am not sure that that is the case. They have always worked very hard:
… ALMOST ALWAYS Buy SECOND HAND CLOTHES, or CARS. WE HAVE NEVER IN OUR LIVES HAD A "CREDIT CARD".
She challenged the body corporate about this extra fee. I have two letters here which she sent on. One says:
As an example a DEFT levy notice with $100.00 payable, when scanned by Australia Post, will read as $102.75 owing in the cashier's system. Once paid, $100.00 that will be allocated by your Strata Manager to your lot and $2.75 will be retained by Australia Post.
Australia Post denies the fact that it is actually putting on the additional levy. So just who is responsible for this? It is time we tried to find out. She also says that she is very happy to be living in Kiama, but she is finding it difficult.
I worked hard to have the pensioner concession card reinstated for those self-funded retirees who, because of their income level, lost their card on 1 January this year. Some of the ministers have actually said I was possibly too tenacious or too annoying. However, I am proud to let the more than 92,000 affected Australians, more than 3,000 of whom live in Gilmore, know that they will be getting their pensioner concession card back in October this year. I will follow up on these unfair paper charges put on by banks, utility corporates and other corporations with exactly the same tenacity I put forward in that case.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (11:45): In my capacity as shadow assistant minister for cybersecurity and defence I am more than aware of the speed at which information and communication technology evolves. I am also more than aware that the rapid pace of change brings with it a risk that some people will subsequently unfortunately be left behind. So I thank the member for Perth for bringing forward this motion, drawing attention to this very important issue of the digital divide of the haves and have-nots that is occurring right across Australia as I speak. This digital divide is a significant issue and it is something we need to be mindful of. The previous member mentioned the fact that 94 per cent of us are on smart phones. That might well be true, but from my own experience of people in my electorate who are still manually going down to the post office to pay their bills with their chequebooks, clutching their bills in their hand, there is a different reality for a large proportion of Australians out there. That is why I commend the member for Perth for bringing this to our attention.
Whilst many of us enjoy the ease of transacting online—purchasing groceries, paying bills or monitoring our utility usage in real time—we do forget that there are also just as many people who do not have access to the same level of digital technologies. Many of these people may have left the workforce before the widespread introduction of modern ICT infrastructure, particularly the portable range. They may have had the types of jobs that did not require the use of these sorts of technologies. Or, as we heard from the previous member, they may live in remote communities where access to reliable internet services is limited. Whilst the experiences of these people are different, there is one thing they all have in common: they are paying extra to receive information from their utility companies, their financial services and their telecommunications providers. Why do they pay extra? They pay extra because they want or need—in many cases there is a need here; let's not forget that—to receive an invoice, bill or statement on paper by post.
Many service providers are required under industry codes or statutory guidelines to provide certain information to their customers. Now they are asking their customers to pay to receive that. Companies claim that sending information online saves them money, so they apply a fee to paper documents to create an incentive for people to change their behaviour—to move from paper to online documents. They are doing this in a number of ways. Some companies are charging a fee to receive a document in the post. The fee is generally more than the actual cost of posting a document—anywhere between $1.30 to $5, with the average being $2.50. Why it is so expensive I do not know. Other companies use discounts or special offers only available online to create the incentive for customers to move to email. There are also examples where companies use special discount pricing structures, where a cheaper price is offered if a customer chooses to receive all of their communications electronically.
While companies try to justify the additional charge, what it really means is that at the end of the day there is an extra bill to be paid by the consumer. The consumer wears the cost. These extra bills add up, placing a financial burden on those who, in my view, can least afford it. I am thinking here about my mum, who is on the full pension. I am thinking here of those women and men I see down at the Australia Post outlet at Deakin with their chequebooks and bills in their hands. In many cases, these are not wealthy people.
There is no evidence that paper communication adds a significant cost to business or that the charges applied are directly related to cost recovery. I know there are many consumers across Canberra who are sick of what they are seeing: companies double-dipping and customers being billed for information they are entitled to receive. This is what we forget: they are entitled to receive their bill in the post on a piece of paper. Many people in my community have participated in the Keep Me Posted campaign, which is advocating for no penalties to apply to their preferred way of receiving transactional communication. The campaign highlights a number of areas of anticonsumer behaviour and, in particular, considers paper billing fees as being thin end of the wedge. I agree with that. This is the thin end of the wedge. Where will this stop? This should not be the burden of the citizen. It is the job of these companies to provide these bills, if required, on paper in the post. A simple change in legislation to enshrine the right to receive communication from a company by post at no extra fee or charge is really important to protect the rights of consumers.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (11:50): It is almost impossible to rise to this notion without recognising the abject foolishness of what it seeks to achieve. Let's go through the different sections of the motion. Part 1 notes:
… the rapid increase in the use of electronic communication technology in recent decades, including in commerce …
I give that a tick. Clause 1(b) says:
… that access to electronic communication technology differs between Australians, and is often related to income, age, education level and remoteness …
That is true. That is also a tick. Then it says:
… that not all Australians have the skills and infrastructure to communicate effectively by electronic channels …
That is a sensible, logical, reasonable observation. Clause 1(d) says:
… That many businesses, including banks, telecommunications companies and utilities, charge consumers an extra fee to receive communications via post …
That is a tick. That is a logical statement of reason and rationality and observation of the world. Then you go on to matter 1(e):
… Often the fee charged by companies to receive communications by post are intended as a disincentive, and do not represent the actual costs incurred by the company …
I have to say that there is a very big question mark there. The reality is that it is definitely true that some institutional service providers like to send things electronically. Why? It is actually pretty bloody obvious. They like to send things electronically—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): I think you made a simple mistake. We will have to refer to the Hansard.
Mr TIM WILSON: Whatever it is I said, I am happy to withdraw it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think you should withdraw.
Mr TIM WILSON: I withdraw unreservedly, for the sake of clarity. It is pretty obvious—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Public ramblings are not acceptable within the parliamentary process of speaking.
Mr TIM WILSON: I think I understand what you are saying, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will continue. I have withdrawn. Is that satisfactory to you?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr TIM WILSON: It is pretty obvious why that is the case. It is because it is cheap, with very little cost, quick—meaning responsive—efficient. As a consequence they do prefer that. But if you require things by traditional means, by post, there is a cost. There is a thing called Australia Post. If you go to the post office—I am not sure if any of the members opposite have done that recently—there is a cost of sending a piece of mail. You also have things like the paper that you print on. There is printer ink and time, energy and resources in folding and processing. All of that costs money. In fact, with the price of a standard letter being about $1 and the previous speaker talking about the cost of sending something being about $1.30 once you factor in all the other costs, which is roughly what agencies use—yes, there is a cost.
Ms Keay interjecting—
Mr TIM WILSON: To those opposite who are interrupting—I have not finished. Then you go on to clause 2 of the motion:
… 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.
What you are saying is that they should not be charged. I understand why you might make that argument, though it does not actually reflect the cost, but it just means the cost has to be reflected elsewhere. Because there is a cost. I just went through the very logical process by which a cost is calculated. That is not to say that I prefer that or disagree with that; it is just a statement of fact. It is a statement of reality about the world that we live in. Online is effectively free, minus the cost of staff time, which is sometimes required for the automation of the systems. But once you fractionalise that across thousands, if not millions, of transactions, the cost per distribution is minimal. Something in the post is not cost free or anywhere near the equivalent. Yes, you can negotiate for a reduction of price in bulk-purchased mailing rates, but there will be a cost, which will be fractionalised across various bits of mail to include staff and labour time and everything else.
So we need to recognise that there is a reality that does not accord with the motion that has been put before us—and that is (1)(e) and (2) of the motion. The reality is that we know there is already a method of regulation on bank fees and charges and the costs in telecommunications companies. Members opposite may not like to acknowledge that, but it exists. It is called the marketplace. People choose to go between different banks. To put my own perspective, I have multiple accounts with different banks. Before anybody gets hysterical about it, they are all disclosed on the register. As a consequence, you make decisions based on messaging and signals. Only a few moments ago, I got this annoying phone call from an energy company that wants me to shift over. One of their key messagings is that there are reductions in the penalty and rates associated with switching over. The market regulates. This motion is a waste of time.
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (11:55): I rise to support this motion moved by the member for Perth. The Nick Xenophon Team have been strong supporters of the Keep Me Posted campaign right from its inception. Senator Xenophon sought to introduce legislation into the Senate in April last year to protect consumers against unfair fees for paper bills and statements. This move would have brought Australia in line with many European countries, Canada and some of the American states, particularly Pennsylvania and New York. Unlike Australia, those other countries and those American states have been quick to tackle this issue.
Being charged for paper bills and statements is a particular challenge for older Australians and for rural and regional Australians. I can understand if you are in the middle of somewhere affluent or you are a young person and good with computers that you would not think that this is an issue, but if you are an older Australian this is a big issue and it has been raised with me by many constituents. I think we are forgetting the digital divide, as many of us move to phones where we have a computer in our hand. There are many Australians—in fact, 3.5 million Australians—who do not have internet access, who do not have computer skills; not all of us are digital natives. For many people it is incredibly frightening to think that they would be receiving their bills online. The fact that we have some of our wealthiest companies in Australia demanding that older Australians, Indigenous Australians and people with a disability—those who are most likely to be susceptible to being charged for paper bills—pay to receive their bills is just astounding. Let me just reel off some of them: Citibank charges $2 per statement; Macquarie Bank, $2.50; and Suncorp Bank, $3 per statement. It does not cost that much to put a postage stamp on a bill. Telstra charges $2.20; Energy Australia, $1.69; and AGL, $1.75. I think many of these companies should be doing the right thing. They should realise that not everybody is online, not everybody has a computer and not everybody is able to determine what is a scam email and what is a real email and that some people still like to receive their bills in the mail. The average Australian household receives between seven and eight invoices per month, with an average cost of $2.20 per bill. This equates to $180 extra per annum for the privilege of getting your bill in the mail for services that you are paying for. That is $180. If you are on a pension, if you are on a very limited income, you need to make every dollar count. I think it is extraordinary that this parliament is not doing more to protect our most vulnerable Australians—as I said, people who are disabled or living in a low income household. We have to remember that just 57 per cent of households with an income of less than $40,000 have access to the internet. So what we are doing and what companies in Australia are doing is penalising those who can least afford it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
COMMITTEES
Public Works Committee
Report
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (11:59): On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's report entitled, Report No. 5 2017:Referrals made December 2016, February and March 2017.
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 fifth report for 2017 of which five proposals referred between December 2016 and March 2017 are now tabled. The first proposal is stage 1 of the Garden Island Critical Infrastructure Recovery Program. The project will demolish the existing cruiser and oil wharves at the naval base at Garden Island in Sydney and replace them with new wharves which will cater for the Royal Australian Navy's current and future needs. The future project cost is $213 million.
The second proposal is for upgrades to mechanical and electrical infrastructure for buildings 5 and 6 at Russell Offices in Canberra. These buildings house the Australian Signals Directorate which provides critical signals intelligence and information security to the Australian Defence Force, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The project cost estimate is $75.4 million.
The third proposal is the Geoscience Australia main building refresh project in Symonston, ACT. Geoscience Australia seeks to conduct the first fit-out of its main building since 1997 and, in the process, to undertake some resurfacing outside and repainting inside, in accordance with their new lease agreements and with the new building owners. The project cost estimate is around $17.5 million, excluding GST.
The fourth project is proposed hardening works at the Melbourne Immigration and Transit Accommodation facility run by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. This project proposes to provide accommodation for high-risk detainees as part of a wider national program to rationalise the immigration detention network in Australia. The project cost estimate is $29 million.
The final project in this report looks to upgrade the housing for Defence Force families at Seaward Village at Swanbourne in Western Australia. Seaward Village is located adjacent to the Campbell Barracks and is largely occupied by Special Air Service Regiment soldiers and their families. This project is estimated to cost $48.3 million.
The committee recommends that the five proposed projects should proceed.
Can I also add my very heartfelt compliments to the committee on the way that the Public Works Committee goes about and conducts its business. Unfortunately, too often, when Australians look at the performance of their representatives and politicians here in Canberra they do so through the prism of question time. I would encourage those who have an interest to spend more time tracking the effectiveness of the good work that is done by so many of the committees in this place. I want to offer a compliment on the way that both sides of the House work in coming to outcomes for the betterment of the nation. The projects that we have just spoken about have national security issues and have defence issues, and I can assure you that both sides of the House have complete ownership of the expensing of taxpayers' money, where we evaluate projects on a number of criteria across party lines. That committee process is supported by a very able secretariat, who are here in the House today.
The report is being tabled and I commend the report to the House.
BILLS
Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the House declines to give the bill a second reading because the bill:
(1) would result in a $22.3 billion cut to Australian schools, compared with the existing arrangements;
(2) would see an average cut to each school of around $2.4 million;
(3) removes extra funding agreed with states and territories for 2018 and 2019, which would have brought all under resourced schools to their fair funding level;
(4) would particularly hurt public schools, which receive less than 50 per cent of funding under the Government’s $22.3 billion cut to schools, compared to 80 per cent of extra funding under Labor’s school funding plan; and
(5) results in fewer teachers, less one-on-one attention for our students and less help with the basics."
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ) (12:04): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question, therefore, now is that the amendment be agreed to. In continuation, I call the honourable member for Fowler.
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (12:04): Before debate on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 was adjourned, I was speaking about the views of the principal of All Saints Catholic Primary School in Liverpool. She made it very clear that this government does not understand the systemic Catholic education system. I noted that last week it was not just what Mrs Scanlon had to say but also what the National Catholic Education Commission said: 'Hundreds of Catholic schools will be allocated less Commonwealth funding next year. Dozens of schools will be hit with a funding cut of 50 per cent or more next year.' It goes on to say: 'Almost 200 schools will be allocated less funding in 2027 than they are currently receiving. These are the department's own figures. They cannot be disputed; they cannot be manipulated.'
I thought about all that and I made some inquiries through the Catholic Education Office. It was only today that I got some explanation on why there is such disparity and conflict between what members opposite are arguing and what is being put to them: it seems that they have relied on the funding estimator for 2017, as opposed to what the schools are actually getting paid in 2017. From my observations, the funding estimator bears no resemblance to the figures supplied by the department of education, so how can this government justify their reliance on the estimated base for their new proposed formula when there are legislated amounts to 2017 which are already being paid in accordance with the Australian Education Act? I think that shows that the figures that members opposite have been reading out for school to school, particularly in the Catholic education sector, are certainly different to what the Catholic Education Office is saying, because they have relied on the estimated model as opposed to what the schools are physically getting paid this year. The estimated model is at a lower level, so they have been arguing that the schools have been getting a larger amount of money. It is going to be very difficult when members opposite start going around their electorates and knocking on the doors of their school principals. Once they start getting out there they will find that the figures they have been quoting are wrong. They are patently wrong. By providing an artificial starting point, the government members have been led to believe by this calculation that no systemic Catholic school would be disadvantaged. Again, referring to the comments of the National Catholic Education Commission, that is wrong. Yet, members opposite have not stopped to actually look at it; they have just relied on their modelling to assert their position.
I spoke this morning to Dr Dan White, Executive director of Sydney Catholic Schools. He made it very clear to me: 'There is no way that our city schools will receive more funding under this new model.' He went on to say, 'Our ability to operate as a system is severely compromised.' He made it very clear that money within the Catholic school system is used in more wealthy areas to assist schools in low socioeconomic areas—that there is a balancing. However, the government's formula compares schools on a school-by-school basis, as opposed to allowing for cross subsidies across the Catholic education system. I think that bears out Mrs Scanlon's view at the All Saints Catholic Primary School in my electorate in Liverpool, when she says she thinks this government fails to understand systemic Catholic education. I think that is right. But this government has a bit of a track record when it comes to education. Bear in mind that in 2013, when we called the 2013 election, we were told by those opposite—by the minister and by the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Tony Abbott, that there 'wasn't daylight' between Labor's policy on education and that of the Liberal Party. We were told that there was a unity ticket. They made it very clear: if you voted Liberal or you voted Labor, you got the very, very same deal for education. There was no difference, so that was not something to base your vote on, because there was no difference between Liberal and Labor when it came to education.
The only thing is that once they got there in 2013, in their very first budget they moved to take $30 billion out of education over a projected 10-year period. Talk about 'no difference' and 'no daylight between the two parties'. In coming to that, they actually tried to justify their position by saying it was not throwing money at education that delivered results. I am not sure. As most people understand, I represent an electorate which is challenged in terms of social and economic terms. It does need an injection of funds to ensure that young people growing up in my seat have the same degree of opportunity to reach their full potential as anybody else. I have got total admiration for the teachers in my community who, quite frankly, not only work very hard but work very passionately to ensure these young people do get that opportunity to succeed in the future.
This government is talking about education simply as another political issue as to where we can take or adjust the finances. Bear in mind that, under the current proposal of this government, they would be taking $22.3 billion out of education. That is not just our figures on that. When the Prime Minister was asked what the figure was between Labor's policy and the Liberal's, he point-blank refused to give an answer on that last week. That has been pressed on dozens of occasions, but it was his office that went up there and briefed the journalists about what the difference between Labor's policy and the Liberal's policy meant. What they told the journalists was there was a $22.3 billion saving. They are not saying there was a cut; they now calling it a saving and trying to make taking money out of the education system look economically responsible.
This government and this Prime Minister has a track record when it comes to education. Just before the last election at one of those photo opportunities he took, the member for Wentworth made it very clear when he started talking about, 'Maybe state education is something the government shouldn't be involved in. Maybe we should start letting the states have an element of income tax revenue and they can provide for their own education system.' We have even heard that in this debate. The member for Gilmore made it very clear in her contribution when she stood up and said, 'Public education? That's a matter for state governments.' The future of this country and the future of our children, who are going to build the future of our country, is a matter for all of us. Simply taking money out of the education system is not going to fix it.
A couple of schools in my electorate do an absolutely fantastic job, and I will just refer to them: Cabramatta High School will lose $3.9 million over the next two years, Canley Vale High School will lose $3.6 million and Bonnyrigg High School will lose about $2 million. The interesting thing about this is that in my electorate of Fowler we have many, many immigrants. In New South Wales, we probably have the majority of refugees who come into this country. For those young people coming in from war-torn and persecuted backgrounds, where English is not a first language, the schools and these teachers do an incredible amount of work to ensure that these young people can benefit from all the opportunities in this country. My electorate, as I say, plays host to probably the majority of refugees coming in from the Middle East under the special humanitarian intake.
You then take public schools like Mainsbridge School in Liverpool, Les Powell School and Lawrence Hargrave School. They are all taking a cut of $150,000-plus per year. But they are special schools. They provide educational opportunities for young people with moderate to severe intellectual disability. Their teachers are doing an absolutely fantastic job of looking after these young people. They do a fantastic job of doing what we should all be doing, and that is ensuring that we include them in our community in the future. They are giving them the skills to participate. This is simply going to put another impost on all those schools and all those teachers who are motivating the best for our community.
There are many occupations that this country is going to rely on into the future and there are many occupations we have not even dreamt up yet. Teaching, for me, is the profession that stands out the most as making an enormous contribution to the future of this country. You are training and skilling the young minds of the future. You are developing a thirst for education among young people who are going to grow up with a lifetime of learning. The contribution you make to this country is astounding, and you need and deserve a government that is going to support you, support the education system and, most of all, support children.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Deputy Prime Minister
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (12:16): Mr Speaker, I seek a brief indulgence.
The SPEAKER: On indulgence, the Leader of the Opposition
Mr SHORTEN: This could be a personal explanation, but the issue I am raising is not about me. This morning the Deputy Prime Minister said:
I remember Mr Shorten, didn’t he stand outside a goldmine down in Tasmania, telling us all about how he, you know, he put on the hi-vis shirt and the bomber jacket, told us all how
This is not a random commentary from a Twitter troll; this is the person who is meant to be Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. It is true that I was at Beaconsfield, but it is even more sadly true that a minor called Larry Knight died down that mine. I will never forget how, after Larry's body was found, management talked about stopping the search so the coroner could take control of the site and it would become a recovery. I will never forget the other miners who were doing the rescuing. They said in front of the superintendent's office: 'No, this is still a rescue operation, not a recovery. Until we know different, there are men down there who are still alive.' Whilst those modest heroes dug through rock to save their workmates, the families of Grant and Todd went through hell and back not knowing if their men would return alive.
It is true that I was at Beaconsfield. It was a privilege to see how upwards of 250 people and more in that community, and the miners, rescued two trapped miners. But what I will never forget on that remarkable morning when the two men came out of the cage alive is that Larry Knight's family had held up the burial of their loved one so it would not distract from the rescue of the two miners who were in fact saved. So I simply ask this: before the Deputy Prime Minister rises to speak on any other matter in the House today, could he please come in here and apologise—not to me but to the family of Larry Knight, who did not need this whole thing dragged up again by the thoughtless comments of the Deputy Prime Minister Australia.
BILLS
Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
“the House declines to give the bill a second reading because the bill:
(1)would result in a $22.3 billion cut to Australian schools, compared with the existing arrangements;
(2)would see an average cut to each school of around $2.4 million;
(3)removes extra funding agreed with states and territories for 2018 and 2019, which would have brought all under resourced schools to their fair funding level;
(4)would particularly hurt public schools, which receive less than 50 per cent of funding under the Government’s $22.3 billion cut to schools, compared to 80 per cent of extra funding under Labor’s school funding plan; and
(5)results in fewer teachers, less one-on-one attention for our students and less help with the basics.”
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (12:19): Can I at the outset echo the words of the Leader of the Opposition on the shocking comments from the Deputy Prime Minister.
On the Australian Education Amendment Bill: it is a great shame that we do not have a bipartisan commitment to the funding of our schools in Australia at the moment. The reason is that this conservative government has chosen to go down a different path on the funding of our schools and education. It is also a great shame that those who suffer because of this lack of bipartisanship when it comes to funding our schools are our children. There is no doubt that our children are worse off in terms of accomplishments and achievements, particularly around literacy, numeracy and mathematics at our schools, because of the approach of this government and the fact that we do not have a bipartisan commitment to education in this country.
The previous, Labor, government sought to end the bickering, the division, the constant changes to the way schools were funded when we were in government. We sought to do that by asking one of Australia's leading businessmen to chair an inquiry into education funding in this county, to travel around to talk to students, to parents, to teachers, to principals, to community groups, to academics and to those who work in this field about the best way to fund our schools so that we could lift literacy and numeracy rates, improve mathematics and science accomplishment and, importantly, not forget about those kids who we all see when we visit schools, who find it difficult and have fallen behind and, as a result, fall out of love with education, feel marginalised by the education system and drop out of education completely—unfortunately, for some, at a school-age level, but, importantly, for most at a continuing education level beyond school.
The Gonski panel came up with a series of recommendations. They were not political. They did not favour one side of politics or the other. They were based purely on the needs of kids. And that is the phrase that is often used to describe what that committee did: needs based funding, looking at what the kids need to ensure that they can prosper at school and that all of them, regardless of their background, regardless of their parents' income, regardless of where they live and regardless of their cultural background get the same opportunity to thrive at school and to fall in love with education, to fall in love with the prospect of learning about how the world works, about researching issues and topics, about furthering their horizons from a personal perspective around education.
Those recommendations had widespread support in the sector. They had the support of the teachers unions. They had the support of school principals. They had the support of parents groups. And, most importantly, they had the support of parents in different communities. And of course Labor sought to implement those reforms. We sought to implement a needs based funding model for schools that was sector blind, that put aside past political differences in the way we funded schools, that took out some of the traditional approaches that had been there that had not been working and to fund based purely on need, with a base level of funding and then additional amounts of funding per school based on the number of kids who had disabilities, who were from an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background, who were born overseas, who went to small schools that were struggling, or who were in low-socioeconomic areas.
This was the funding model that Labor introduced, and we fully funded it for the recommended period of six years. We all remember, in the lead-up to the 2013 election, that the then Abbott opposition, through their education spokesperson, the member for Sturt, clearly putting on the record that if you voted for a coalition government there would be no difference from the Labor Party when it came to funding our schools, that we were on a 'unity ticket', in his words—there would be no difference. And then, of course, when Tony Abbott, the member for Warringah, and his team were elected they reneged on that commitment; they misled the Australian public and they went back on that commitment that they made on schools funding, because in their 2014 budget that is exactly what they did: they cut funding for schools. They cut the last two years of that Gonski program, of that needs based funding model, and in doing so undermined what we thought was a final bipartisan approach and commitment to funding our schools. And the result is what we are debating here today. The result is further cuts to school funding in this country that will undermine the educational needs and aspirations of our kids.
When you compare Labor's approach—the needs-based funding model based on the Gonski principles—and this government's approach and the funding that we are debating here today through this bill, the difference is $22 billion over four years. That will make a very big difference to the educational outcomes of our kids in schools across the country.
I have been speaking to school principals and teachers on the ground in the community that I represent about what these cuts will mean. The clear perspective of the principals and teachers—and something that quite often comes back to me—is: 'We can't plan for the future. We can't plan how we are going to deliver growth in the system. We can't plan how we are going to cater for the needs of kids with disabilities who are falling behind and plan for the delivery of resources to get those kids up to speed.' That is principally in the form of teacher aides in classrooms and specialist teachers, particularly around literacy and numeracy and remedial work. The beauty of the Gonski funding was that the additional funding that went to schools for this meant that principals could plan and could employ people to work specifically in those areas. And they were getting results; they were lifting the achievement results of the kids. This cut and these new reforms make that planning almost impossible—and it means that schools will not do it and the kids will once again miss out.
Parents are aware of what this government is doing. Over the last couple of weeks I have received quite a few emails that I have read with interest from parents about their views on what this government is proposing. A couple of weeks ago I met with a single mum from my community whose daughter goes to a local Catholic school. She came to visit me and insisted on having a meeting to talk about what the budget cuts mean for her daughter and her school. After seeing the budget and the massive cuts and having spoken to the administrators of her school, she was beside herself with worry about her daughter's school fees being increased. The school principal had written them a letter and said, 'If these cuts are instituted we will have to put up the school fees.' This is a local Catholic school. In her initial email to me, the mother wrote:
The impact on all Catholic systemic schools following the recent announced proposed changes to Federal Government funding may prevent me from being able to ensure that my daughter is raised with the spiritual guidance and community that ensures her identity as a catholic is nurtured.
She went on to say:
The evidence base shows us that ensuring the identity of our children and young people is nurtured is important to building their resilience and ensuring their wellness in life. I find it very frustrating that funding cuts may result in me being unable to provide my daughter with the spiritual environment best suited to her needs.
I am a sole parent, and I manage a chronic health condition … I am reliance on contract work. I am financially challenged, with education, rent and medical expenses being my primary outlays. I could not afford to pay significantly increased fees.
That is symbolic of the response that I am getting from parents in the community that I represent. Here you have a single mum struggling to cope to make ends meet but found the wherewithal to send her daughter to a good local Catholic to meet with her religious commitments. That is jeopardised because of the government's funding cuts.
As I said earlier, schools are in disarray as a result of the government's proposed $22 billion cut. That is about $2.4 million cut from every school, if you average that out over the country. And $850 million will be cut over the next two years alone from New South Wales public schools. The New South Wales government are up in arms about what this government is proposing with these reforms, because they know that the state of New South Wales is being short changed by the Commonwealth government. Here you have a Liberal state government—which obviously would have been reluctant to criticise their Commonwealth colleagues—that have not held back. They have said that what the Commonwealth government is doing with school funding is undermining the school system in New South Wales.
When we talk about funding for schools, it is also important to discuss what makes a real difference in our classrooms and how we spend that money in the most effect way to educate our children. That is why the states signed up to the original Gonski package—because they saw the benefits that not only the kids got, but the states got as well, in terms of the way that education had been funded in the past.
In relation to what the government is proposing, we are going to see a reduction in the quality of education that children receive. Of course this will make a big difference to kids' aspirations in life and, importantly, whether or not they go on to further education. We need to be encouraging more kids to either take on trades through TAFE and other tertiary education or go to university, because ultimately they end up more productive not only in their own lives, with a better quality of life, but also in terms of the nation.
I have had a look at what these reforms will do the schools in the local community that I represent. The figures show us that under this government schools will be worse off across the board. To name just a few: despite having a rapidly growing local population of young families, Mascot Public School loses $370,000 over the years 2018 and 2019. Maroubra Junction Public School, which has been one of the fastest growing schools over the last few years, because they have been getting great NAPLAN results and great achievements, particularly around remedial reading and literacy programs, is worse off to the tune of $470,000. Randwick Girls High School, one of the great public high schools in the electorate that I represent, is worse off to the tune of $700,000 just in those two years. All up, schools across Kingsford Smith in the years 2018 and 2019 will be $7½ million worse off under this government as a result of this unfair attack on local schools.
With Labor's plan there is a different approach. The biggest planned increases go to schools that need them most, whether they are public, Catholic or independent. In practice that means around 80 per cent extra funding goes to public schools. That is because public schools teach around 80 per cent of Australia's poorest kids, 80 per cent of Australia's Indigenous children, and 70 per cent of kids with a disadvantage and a disability. In contrast, under Malcolm Turnbull's policy, only one in seven public schools will get their fair share of funding. So the contrast could not be more stark. This government is cutting $22 billion from the schools education budget through this bill that we debate today and leaving kids worse off, leaving individual schools worse off and ensuring that kids do not meet their aspirations and their plans for the future. Labor's approach is to adopt the Gonski model of funding so it is needs based and sector blind and importantly, focuses on the needs of kids, with a base level of funding and loadings for disadvantage that see schools properly funded, with funding growing in each of those schools and with teachers getting the resources that they need to make a difference on the ground for kids. The contrast could not be starker.
I said at the beginning that we wanted this approach to be bipartisan. We wanted to take the politics finally out of the way that we funded schools in this country, so that we focused on the needs of the kids. We thought we had that under the previous Labor government, when we instituted the Gonski reforms and when this government, in opposition, pledged that they would support those reforms. They have reneged through this bill, and that is why this bill must be rejected.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (12:34): I rise to speak on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. As we have just heard from my colleague the member for Kingsford Smith, we thought we had a bipartisan agreement on this issue—the education of future generations, no matter whether it be public, private or Catholic. We thought we had agreement on the approach that would be taken to educating generations for the future. This government has reneged on this issue, as it has on so many issues. Now what we are seeing is not just a backtracking on a bipartisan agreement and commitment to education for the future of all Australians but also a cut—a $22.3 billion cut—from Australian schools. What we are seeing is that what that actually means is a $2.5 million cut for each school throughout the country.
This is going to have a significant impact on schools in my electorate—particularly the Catholic schools, but also the public schools. It is going to particularly hurt our public schools because they will receive 50 per cent less funding if this bill is to pass. This bill will result in an inequitable outcome and see a significant number of young Australians disenfranchised and missing opportunities that a high-quality education can provide.
I am living proof of the fact that education is transformative. My sisters and I are living proof of the great enabler, the great opportunity opener and the great transformer that is education, thanks to my mother's commitment to putting us through high school and then through tertiary education and university. It was her commitment to actually see us educated. She was a single mum; my dad left us with $30 in the bank when he left us when I was 11. We did it very tough, but my mother was absolutely determined that we were going to be educated—that we would finish high school and go to university—because she was very starkly aware of the limited opportunities offered to the women in her family as a result of limited education.
My great-grandmother left school at 11 and was a domestic in the Western District. She was a cleaner, for want of a better term, in the domestic district for the wealthy families in the Western District in Victoria. She brought up 13 children on her own. My grandmother was a cleaner and she cleaned three places: a factory, a theatre and a workplace. She brought up seven children on her own in a housing commission house in Preston. My mother left school—dragged, kicking and screaming—at 15. She brought up my sisters and me on her own. As I said, Dad left us with $30 in the bank when I was 11. She was determined that that cycle of disadvantage would not continue—that it would be broken by my sisters and me and our generation—and that education was the only thing that allowed that cycle of disadvantage to be broken.
As I said, I am living proof of education's transformative powers. My middle sister is living proof. She is a scientist and Australia's first female master of wine. She is now making wine and consulting on wine. She has done that all over the world and she is now doing it in Victoria. My little sister is an internationally renowned neurologist. It is education that has basically provided us with those opportunities for these wonderful, rewarding, enriching careers and the opportunity for all of us to give back through our various careers.
Education is the transformer. Education is the silver bullet. Education is the great enabler, full stop. The cuts this government is proposing have the potential to deny the young Australians of the future those opportunities and choices, and deny them the experiences of the transformative powers of education and the opportunities for cycles of disadvantage to be broken.
Labor undertook, as we know, the landmark review into school funding. We introduced the Schooling Resource Standard, which was a sector-blind model that clearly defined the funding all schools needed to deliver a great education. The funding model guaranteed extra funding for kids with poorer outcomes to give them the help they needed. Despite the coalition government's commitment to a bipartisan approach and despite the coalition government's commitment to being on a unity ticket, this is not what the Turnbull government is putting forward with this bill.
The Turnbull government speaks volumes through this bill. The message that is being sent here is that it does not believe in education as the great enabler or as the great transformer. It does not understand how it can change lives and how it is the silver bullet. The Turnbull government does not want to guarantee the rights of every child to receive the best possible education this nation can provide, no matter where they live, no matter what their parents earn or parent earns, no matter what postcode they live in and no matter what their background is. The Turnbull government has turned its back on so many who are doing it tough.
The Turnbull government is proposing changes to the current act that will remove the national targets for Australia. It will remove the national target for Australia to be placed in the top five highest-performing countries by 2025. Why would you do that? Why would you not have that aspiration for your country and the aspiration for every child in our nation to be in a country that is one of the top five highest-performing countries by 2025? It is removing the target for our school system to be considered high quality and highly equitable on the international stage by 2025, and for the lifting of year 12 or equivalent attainment rate to 90 per cent.
The Turnbull government is also looking to remove targets for halving the gap between Indigenous and other students in attaining year 12 or equivalent by 2020 from the baseline in 2006. Finally, the Turnbull government is removing the target for halving the gap between Indigenous and other students in reading, writing and numeracy by 2018 from the baseline in 2008.
The Turnbull government's changes also remove the statements about quality teaching and quality learning from the act. Again, this is perplexing. It was a unity ticket, bipartisan approach, but here is the government removing these statements about the aspiration for quality teaching and quality learning to ensure that teachers have the skills and support they require to improve their performance over time. The Turnbull government is removing statements that Australian schooling will provide a high-quality educational experience with an environment and curriculum that supports all school students to reach their full potential.
The fact that these statements, commitments, aspirations, goals and targets have been removed just underscores again that the government simply does not value education for all. And I am speaking here about all; I am not talking about the top end of town—I am not talking about Shore and I am not talking about Kings or Geelong Grammar; I am talking about Richardson Primary in my electorate, with 25 per cent of its students Indigenous. I am talking about schools in your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, and schools in all of our electorates, where kids are doing it tough; they are not from wealthy parents. And I am not just talking here of our public schools; I am also talking about Catholic schools—I will come to that shortly.
The Turnbull government's lack of commitment and understanding of education, its lack of valuing of education and it lacks understanding that it is transformative, that it is a silver bullet, is represented in these $22.3 billion cuts. As I said, this means a cut of $2.4 million for every Australian school over the next decade. That is the equivalent of sacking 22,000 teachers.
Under this government's approach, less than 50 per cent of extra funding will go to public schools. Labor was providing 80 per cent of extra funding for public schools, because we know that public schools cater for seven out of 10 kids with a disability, for seven out of 10 kids from a language background other than English, for eight out of 10 Indigenous students, and for around eight out of 10 kids from low-income families.
These are people like me. These are the people who I was when I was a student—when I was a young girl: low-income families and single-income families. Thanks to my mother's commitment and a great public education, I am now proudly representing the people of Canberra. These schools have seven out of 10 kids with disability, seven out of 10 kids from a language background other than English, eight out of 10 Indigenous students and around eight out of 10 kids from low-income families. Under this government, these schools will basically see less than 50 per cent of extra funding. According to the Canberra School Census, released in February 2017, 46,557 students attend public schools in the ACT. That is a lot of students who are going to be affected by this cut.
But, as I said, it is not just the public schools that are going to be disadvantage as a result of the government's cuts. The government's cuts are also penalising Catholic schools, particularly here in Canberra. In Canberra, systemic Catholic schools will feel the brunt of the cuts. As a result, they are going to have to increase their fees or cut teachers at their schools. I recently had the great pleasure of going to St Thomas More's Primary School in Campbell in my electorate with the Leader of the Opposition, the deputy leader and, also, shadow education minister. Under this government's proposed changes, St Thomas More's will lose $214,400 over 10 years, while The King's School, that very prestigious and privileged school in Sydney, will receive additional funding in the multimillions of dollars. How is this fair?
I was also contacted by a parent who has children at St Thomas More's Primary School. They said that St Thomas More's Primary School is a small school with basic facilities. It does, however, have gifted and dedicated teachers who have a deep understanding of each child and how each child learns more effectively. Its school community is close and supportive. You can feel this when you walk into the school. This is one of the schools that has been targeted by the Turnbull government's cuts. The Turnbull government's proposed funding cuts are risking this school's future right now as I speak. It is a critical point in time for the enrolments. It could have a significant impact on enrolments for the future and, also, on the future of the school. The school community has been told that they will see thousands of dollars in increases in school fees. That is just one of many here in Canberra that has been very hard hit by this government.
I received a message from the principal of St Mary MacKillop College. St Mary MacKillop College is a co-ed school. It is the largest school here in Canberra. It is located in the Tuggeranong Valley. According to the principal there, the base funding of all students at MacKillop has been frozen for 10 years, and then it will be cut. This includes students with disabilities. This was confirmed to me over the phone by Minister Birmingham's office. This is a disgrace and is not fair. After 10 years, MacKillop's funding will be cut by $770 per student—a net loss of $4.6 million. So here we have St Thomas More's losing in the vicinity of about $215,000 in 10 years, while The King's School has a multimillion dollar increase in its funding. Here we have St Mary MacKillop College—a very modest school with parents of modest incomes—losing $4.6 million. This is the government on education, despite its commitment to bipartisanship and its commitment to a unity ticket.
This bill speaks volumes about the Turnbull government's commitment to education for all Australians, no matter what their background, no matter what their parents earn, no matter what their circumstances. It is all about funding The King's School at the expense of public education at schools like Richardson Primary School and at the expense of Catholic education in schools like St Thomas More's Primary School. It is all about looking after the big end of town while the rest of us, the disadvantaged and those with disability are underfunded and have their funding cut. (Time expired)
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (12:49): The Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 will be amongst the most important that we will debate in the 45th Parliament. There can be no question about that. I rise to speak to it. I also rise to support the amendments put forward by the member for Sydney which, of course, highlight the inadequacies of this bill and highlight the funding cuts which will be imposed on our schools—Catholic, independent and, of course, our public schools right across the country. It was Neville Wran who once said, many years ago, that there are really three issues before the government. I think it was in a campaign at that time. Those three issues, he said were, jobs, jobs and jobs. For me that is very much what this bill is all about. It is about making sure our young people and the young people of tomorrow secure the education they need to secure for themselves a well paid, secure job in life and all the knock-on consequences or benefits that flow from that.
One of my greatest passions in my 21 years here has been the issue of intergenerational unemployment. Sadly, many of us in our electorates have young people idle, unemployed, who have never known either their parents or grandparents to have worked, who have never really worked to a timetable, have never really had much structure in life, never woken up to an alarm clock like you and I do, something we take very much for granted and accept as part of our daily routine. I have worked with and through and developed various labour market programs designed to intervene with these young people. Some of them have been quite successful over the years; some have been less successful. We all remember the RED scheme, well before my time, which people often described as an exercise in painting rocks white. They took people into work for a short time but provided no longer term training or hope for a job.
We have been more enlightened in recent years, providing training as part of those labour market programs, although less enlightened in more recent years, under the Abbott government in particular, where political populism seemed to become more important than ensuring that within these programs there is a sufficient level of training and, therefore, an opportunity to give young people a better opportunity in life.
We now live in the 21st century, where low-paid, manual jobs, unskilled jobs are becoming less and less a feature of our economy. Of course that will be increasingly the case in future decades. So we ask ourselves what sort of jobs there will be for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. What sort of chance are they going to have to secure a job in that new economy? How are we going to ensure that they have the skills they will need to secure a job in an environment where skills are absolutely necessary?
Let me go back to intergenerational unemployment. We are too close to these debates. We need to go back to our electorates and talk to people one on one. The basic facts of these debate tend to get lost in the big words we use and the nature and high level of the debate and the big numbers that we use around these conversations. The reality is that many people in our communities do not know what Gonski is. They do not know what it does. They sense that it is in part about giving more money to our schools. For me it is very simple: Gonski is about giving the schools the money they need. Let us forget these people who say money does not matter. Have a look at some of the outcomes of some of our very wealthy private schools and some of the outcomes of our public schools and the difference between them and ask yourself, why? It is about money. Money does matter. Gonski is about giving our schools the least amount of money, really, as determined by the resource standard, that they need to do what we want them to do—that is, to give our kids a good education, an education to a standard that assures them an opportunity to secure a good job in life.
I think it must have been towards the end of the 2014 calendar year when I had an amazing experience. At every school presentation day that I attended at the end of that year, I was thanked publicly by the principal in the principal's address. I was thanked by the principal as a member of the parliamentary Labor Party for what we did for their school, for the fact that we gave them the opportunity to intervene with those children whom I have been talking about. That is what Gonski in many senses is: the capacity of a school to identify a child who has come from a difficult background and who has obviously arrived at the school with challenges. Not only does the school identify them; it also puts in place for that child a program which helps them overcome that disadvantage, to put in place an additional teacher or half a teacher or quarter of a teacher—whatever it might be in hours terms—to make sure that child has the best possible chance to overcome that disadvantage. Of course, it is not just about the challenged child. We do not want students with difficulties and the extra resources they draw from teaching staff to become the disadvantage for those who come from a much happier environment, without so many challenges. We want to make sure that schools have the resources to not only do their best for the challenged child, the challenged student, but also ensure that those who come from happier situations have every opportunity to fulfil their aspirations as a student. That is, for me, more than anything else what Gonski is about. Our school teachers, our principals, were thanking me for that—but they are not going to be thanking the Turnbull government for these massive cuts.
This is the other thing that people do not understand. They hear us debating all these big numbers, but it is pretty simple. So let me simplify it for them. After three years, I suppose it has been, of denying the needs based funding system that we put forward under Gonski, the government have now capitulated. They have capitulated and said: 'Okay. We accept that is the model moving forward. That aspect of Gonski is the best thing we can do for our schools and so, axiomatically, we are going to spend more money.' That is welcome. They have accepted the needs based model and they are going to spend more money, after three years of denying that the needs based model was the best way to go and after three years of arguing that they were spending more than enough money. They stand at this dispatch box every question time and say: 'School funding is going up every year, out 10 years.' Of course it is. Imagine if it went backwards? Of course it goes up every year—so does inflation. Schools need more money every year, and so does the school population. Of course it goes up every year, but it was not going up enough. Now, even after their capitulation, it will still not be going up enough—and that is the point. That is what people need to understand. The Prime Minister has capitulated. He has said: 'Okay. I will spend more'—substantially more, actually, but not what the David Gonski's needs based system is demanding. They are spending more, but it is not enough. I say to those who might be listening out there: this is what the debate is all about. Yes, they are going to spend more money, more than they planned, more than they argued they needed to spend over three years, but it is not enough. It is nowhere near enough. In fact, it is $22 billion less over 10 years than they need to, if they are really serious about backing Gonski and Labor's model.
What makes me so passionate about this issue, beyond the obvious, is that those most disadvantaged by this legislation will be our students in rural and regional Australia. I am pleased that the member for Lingiari is here with us. No-one knows that better than him, and he knows better than me that it is even more true for Indigenous students. We are commemorating the anniversary of the 67 referendum, the Bringing them home report, and the Mabo decision. We are standing here, leaders at the dispatch box, commemorating those important events, recommitting ourselves to narrowing the gap and all that goes with it. But it is Indigenous students who are going to be the most disadvantaged by the bill before the House today.
I sent a message to the people of Mallee, Gilmore, Forrest, Corangamite, Grey, Gippsland and Cowper. I asked them to have a look at the speeches of those members who have been in here defending this bill.
Mr Rick Wilson interjecting—
Mr FITZGIBBON: I was not sure whether the member for O'Connor would be speaking. Is the member for O'Conner speaking?
Mr Rick Wilson: I will be.
Mr FITZGIBBON: He says he will. I do not think his name is on the speakers' list. Maybe now that I am issuing the challenge he might find the intestinal fortitude to leap to his feet and defend this outrageous bill before the parliament. But I want others, from all of those electorates, to have a look at the speeches of their members, have a close look at those speeches, and see the extent to which they sought to defend this bill. And if they did not defend this bill, that will be even more interesting, because we do not have time to listen to all of them, and I would make an appeal to those residents to let us know what they were saying and to let us know where they thought they were being duplicitous. Have a close look, I say to those residents, at what their members have to say—and of course we will all have a very close look at what the member for O'Connor is now going to say, having been dragged screaming to the debate.
But what about the members for Calare, Capricornia, Murray, Parkes, Flynn, Maranoa, Dawson, Wide Bay, Hinkler, Durack—and O'Connor? We might have him; we might be able to move him—and La Trobe and Farrer, people representing rural and regional communities, the communities that are going to be the most adversely affected by this bill. Not one of them is on the list. And I did not mention the member for Hume. Maybe he has come in here now to make a contribution to this debate. Maybe the member for Hume has just come in to defend this bill, despite the adverse consequences for his local schools.
I was very proud to join the Australian Education Union and our leader and deputy leader and so many members of the federal parliamentary Labor Party in our party room last week, where we held an event to highlight the disadvantage. I was talking there to a high school teacher who was outraged by these funding cuts. He is a leader in the union movement as well. He comes from Armidale High School in the electorate of the Deputy Prime Minister. And guess what? He cannot even secure a meeting with his local member. As the president of the union locally, representing his school and teachers and the families of those students, he cannot even secure a meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister, who no doubt is too busy pork barrelling the APVMA into his electorate rather than worrying about the real issue in New England, and that is that we need to give students the best opportunity to secure a job.
The member for Hume is going to get sucked in to now quoting what is happening with school funding in Armidale. He just highlights the point. Of course school funding is going up, but it is not going up enough, I say to the member for Hume. It is not going up as much as it should. It is not going up as much as David Gonski insisted it must in order to give those students the best opportunities in life. So, I look forward to seeing the member for Hume, who is avoiding speaking on this bill, jumping, leaping to his feet and explaining to the residents of Hume why he is in here voting for a bill that is going to entrench disadvantage in his local electorate. I look forward to that very, very much. (Time expired)
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): I remind members on both sides that debating across the chamber does not occur unless it is through the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. And I am hoping that after I call the next member people will quieten down a bit on both sides.
Dr ALY (Cowan) (13:04): The previous speaker, the member for Hunter, mentioned that it was a really important time to be speaking about this bill, the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017, in the 43rd Parliament. As it is my first term in parliament, I consider it quite a privilege to be able to speak on such an important bill in an area that I have such a passion for and an interest in.
I mentioned in my first speech that I started my schooling in a Catholic school. I remember that day very well. I was four years old and it was my sister's first day at school. My mother had dragged me along to ensure that my sister got into school on her first day. I went there with my unruly curls and my spindly arms and legs and simply refused to leave the school. I think I chucked what they call a tantrum, although I cannot imagine myself doing that at all! The nuns, taking pity on my mother, sent her to buy me a school uniform and immediately enrolled me in the school at the age of four. So I started my schooling in a Catholic school. I ended my schooling at an Anglican school, Meriden, in Strathfield in Sydney. In between then I attended numerous public schools. So it is safe to say that I have had quite an experience across a broad spectrum of different schools. That experience left a good impression on me, because I finished school and then went on to do four different university degrees and two different TAFE degrees.
So, call me a glutton for punishment, but I like to believe that, like the member for Canberra, education has provided me with opportunities to better myself, to better my life and to provide for my family opportunities that I otherwise would not have been able to provide. That is why I am such a big believer in education and such a big supporter of the schools in my electorate. I think schools are extremely important socialising agents. They are not just about educating our children. When you think about it, school is where you learn to love, it is where you learn to hate and it is where you learn to get on with people. It is where you learn about so many aspects of life—not just education. Schools do indeed perform a very important role in our society.
In my electorate I have some wonderful schools doing those very things: Mercy College, St Anthony's, Kingsway Christian College and Alta-1, which is a care school that caters specifically to young people who have mental health issues or are dealing with drug issues at home, and it does some really amazing work. Those are some of the non-government schools in my electorate. The government schools include Ballajura Community College; Girrawheen Senior High; Kiara College; Ashdale Secondary; Madeley Primary; Carnaby Rise Primary, the newest school in my electorate; and Beechbora and Ballajura primary schools. All of these schools are providing essential services to young people, and I have met with most of them and talked to them about needs based funding and exactly what it means for them.
From having my own children go through school and talking to other parents, you hear a lot of people say things: 'If the child has the aptitude and the talent, they will flourish at any school.' I do not necessarily believe that is true, because I do think that the school itself, and particularly how well funded the school is, makes a difference to a child's education. Every child in Australia has the right to access quality education, education that means something for them. Whether or not they are talented, whether or not they have a scholarly aptitude, every child has the right to a school that looks after that child's needs in the best possible way that it can.
Those on the other side keep telling us—I was aghast to hear this—that their proposal represents an $18 billion injection into schools. Let us look at that a bit more closely. When you rip out $30 billion and then reinstate $8 billion, there is a shortfall of $22 billion. It is very simple maths. I am not a maths genius—never was. It was one of my worst subjects at school, but I can tell you that 30 minus 8 leaves you with 22. That is the difference between what Labor would have funded and what this government has funded.
Let us have a look at a few more details of this proposal. I will give just a little bit of detail before I get into some more points about education. Let us look, first of all, at some of the key changes in this. It is transitioning to a flat Commonwealth contribution of 20 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard for all government schools and 80 per cent for all non-government schools over 10 years. It is removing the ability of the minister to determine an SES score for a group of schools by legislative instrument; instead, the minister will determine the SES score for each individual non-government school. It is changing the disability loading. It is reducing the benefit afforded to non-government primary schools under the capacity-to-contribute calculations, and we still do not know what the impact of this is going to be. It is reducing accountability and Commonwealth levers over non-government schools, removing the requirement for approved authorities to have implementation plans and school improvement frameworks. All of these things do not speak to a more quality schooling and education system but speak to the removal of quality.
As I mentioned earlier, education is fundamental. It is fundamental for the socialisation of our young people. It is fundamental for the whole wellbeing, the holistic wellbeing, of our children. It is not just about learning to read and to write but about growing children into society and giving them the moral standards that they need to determine right from wrong in society. Schools play a really important role in that.
When I go and talk to all the schools in my electorate, I also talk about resilient school communities and about how a school is not just about the students and the teachers and the administrators; it is also about the parents and even the people living in the community as well, and it is about looking at our school as a school community and understanding how critical education is to ensuring that every young Australian has the opportunity to reach their full potential.
That is the reason why Labor undertook the landmark review into school funding. That is why we introduced the Schooling Resource Standard, which was a sector-blind model which clearly defined the funding all schools needed to deliver a great, quality education—the kind of education that our young people deserve. It was a funding model that guaranteed extra funding for kids with poorer outcomes, to give them the extra help they needed. As I said earlier, we can sit there and say it relies on the child's aptitude—that a child with aptitude will flourish no matter what the school. But that is simply not true. Children with high aptitude will flourish in a good education system; so, too, will children with less aptitude, because the role of the school is not just about teaching reading, writing and arithmetic; it is also about socialising young people and looking after them as a holistic individual.
Labor's funding model and the Australian Education Act 2013 enshrined the following objective into Australian law:
All students in all schools are entitled to an excellent education, allowing each student to reach his or her full potential so that he or she can succeed, achieve his or her aspirations, and contribute fully to his or her community, now and in the future.
I believe that that is a very noble objective and one that all sides of government should be proud to fulfil.
But you see, there is a difference between equity and equality, and it seems to be a difference that those opposite just do not understand. Equity refers to having access to education. It means that every young person can go to school—they have a school in their neighbourhood; they are able to go to that school. But equality is something different, particularly substantive equality, because equality gets to the heart of what young people are able to achieve. It gets to the heart of opportunity. Even though I have access to a school—I am able to go to school—equality means that, regardless of my socioeconomic status, regardless of my background, regardless of how much money my parents earn and regardless of whether I go to a Catholic school, a public school or a private school, I have the opportunity to achieve the best outcomes that I possibly can. That is equality—that is substantive equality—and it is very different from equity. Equality, and substantive equality in particular, is at the core of the principle of fairness.
This seems to be something that those opposite do not understand, because they have simply walked away from the targets in the act; they have walked away from the targets that deliver needs based funding to schools and they have walked away from the targets that ensure a schooling resource standard across the board that we can be proud of as Australians and that ensure we can be proud to send our kids to school. They are walking away from the objective in the current act that we ensure that the Australian schooling system provides a high quality and highly equitable education for all students by having regard to national targets. These national targets are important, and the first is for Australia to be placed, by 2025, in the top five highest performing countries based on the performance of school students in reading, mathematics and science. That is a noble target and I am sure one that all parents in Australia, all people in Australia, would be very supportive of. The second the target is for the Australian schooling system to be considered a high quality and highly equitable schooling system by international standards by 2025. The third target is to lift the year 12 or equivalent or certificate II attainment rate to 90 per cent by 2015. The fourth target is to lift the year 12 or equivalent or certificate III attainment rate to 90 per cent by 2020. The fifth target is to at least halve the gap between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and other students in year 12 or equivalent attainment rates by 2020 from the baseline in 2006, and the sixth target is to halve the gap between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and other students in reading, writing and numeracy by 2018 from the baseline in 2008.
This government has walked away from those targets—it simply does not value education for all. The changes that have been introduced in this bill represent, as I mentioned earlier, $22 billion in cuts to education. Parents and teachers know that schools will be worse off because of this $22 billion cut. To put it into perspective, it is the equivalent of cutting $2.4 million from every school in Australia over the next decade or, to put it in even more blatant terms, it is like sacking 22,000 teachers. The review of school funding recommended that all government's work together to ensure every child has the best chance to succeed in school and in life, and they said that what matters is the total resources that a school has for each and every child that walks through the school gate every morning and not whether those resources come from the Commonwealth or come from the state. That is why Labor worked with states and territories to ensure that by 2019 every underfunded school would reach their fair level of funding—in 2022 for Victoria. We went to the states and we said to them, 'We will work with you to ensure that each and every child gets the funding they need'. We offered two-thirds of the extra funding needed and locked states into increasing their funding by one-third.
Let us do a little comparison of this government and what Labor proposed. Under what Malcolm Turnbull is proposing, some 85 per cent of public schools will not have reached their fair funding level by 2027—eight years from now. Under their model, less than 50 per cent of extra funding goes to public schools. I will talk a little bit about a couple of the schools in my electorate. Ballajura Community College have a teaching staff of 109. They have nearly 1,500 students, and 37 per cent of their students are in the bottom quarter of the Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage—the ICSEA—and the national average is 25 per cent. Girrawheen Senior High School, which is also in my electorate, have 37 staff and 483 students—one teaching staff member for 13 students—and 65 per cent of their students are in the bottom quarter of the ICSEA. (Time expired)
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (13:19): I, like many of my colleagues, am a product of a state school education—and a fine one it was. I was raised initially in Rockhampton. My school, Frenchville Primary School, was on the outskirts of Rockhampton. It is a tiny little school so small that, when I drove past it last time, I missed it. I remember it being much bigger. But it is not much bigger than this room, actually; it is a very tiny little school. And then we moved to Brisbane when my father joined the Army, and I went to Somerset primary school and then Everton Park High School, which were both in the middle of public housing estates. They were not wealthy schools by any means—and Everton Park had quite a troublesome reputation at some points—yet they gave me a fantastic education.
I remember some of the circumstances of some of the children I went to school with. I remember one particular young boy who was smart, witty, good looking, physically skilled at sport and skilled in his academic achievements. He got special dispensation to leave school at the age of 14 because his parents could not afford to feed him. So, like quite a few children in the suburb I was in, his schooling was cut short because of the poverty of his parents—and, no doubt, he went out to take a job that did not require skill. Whether he ever achieved the completion of high school, I do not know. When I was going to school, there were many children who left school for that reason.
In my electorate of Parramatta I see children in circumstances where their education may be cut short because of the capacity of their parents. I see children whose education will never be what it should be because of the trauma they have experienced in some dreadful places around the world. We have children of refugees arriving in Australia whose schooling has been incredibly disrupted. We have children who turn up at school without being able to speak English. We have children whose parents do what they think is the right thing and do not teach their young children to speak English; they are afraid their child might learn to speak English with an accent, so they wait until their child goes to school to learn English.
We have many challenges in my electorate. It concerns me that we have a government right now that is hacking away at our capacity as a community to support those children to be the people they can be. They do not understand that there are many children in our community right around this country who actually need the kind of support that the original Gonski model was going to give them. And they have cut that support the way. I thought I first heard this quote in a mosque, but it turns out it was from the Talmud: 'Every blade of grass has an angel bending over it whispering "Grow, grow, grow!"' And so it is for children. You need only watch a tiny child figuring out what to do with their fingers—trying to work out how to move things, how things work, how to run and how jump—to know that 'every child has an angel bending over it whispering "Learn, learn, learn!"' Whether they fulfil that potential as a child and whether they fulfil their potential as they grow up is largely dependent on how well we resource some of the remarkable teachers who work with children to make sure they are the best they can be. Our future depends on education—not just the future of an individual child, but our economy depends on it. And the needs that we will have in our workforce in coming years are such that our education must be extraordinary from the day a child first arrives at school.
It seems that there are two stories in this House at the moment. We have a government saying they are increasing funding to schools and we have an opposition saying it is a $22 billion cut. Those two things cannot actually be true. One of the reasons I know there is a $22.3 billion cut to the education budget is that the government's own documents actually say so. A document that the government produced and put around the press gallery, 'Funding, figures and qualifiers—30 April agreed costs', says 'compared to Labor's arrangements, this represents a saving of $6.3 billion over four years and $22.3 billion over 10 years'. The government's own document says it is a $22.3 billion saving—a cut, effectively. It is a reduction in the amount of money that schools would receive by $22.3 billion.
Given they have already said it in writing, how can they say it is more? It is a nice little trick. Remember that just before the election back in 2013 Tony Abbott said that they would support the Gonski agreement in full but then straight after the election, in 2014, cut $30 billion from schools. The government is basing its new funding after the $30 billion was cut. So they cut $30 billion from schools, then they put a bit back and claimed they have increased it. They do not tell you that. They cut $30 billion, put about $8 billion back and said: 'Wow, look at us. Aren't we great? We deserve a medal. We have just put $8 billion back.' They say they have increased funding, but they cut first and then put it back.
They also say, 'You can't trust Labor's plans because they were beyond the forward estimates.' So is this school funding model, by the way. So is the tax cut that they are giving to big business and multinationals—that is a 10 year plan. That is well beyond the forwards. But to them, if it is a tax cut for big business you can plan 10 years but, for some reason, if it is education, if it is about the future of our children, you cannot, that is fantasy. Tax cuts, certainly—they are absolutely fabulous and you can plan 10 years. Schools? Do not. If it is not possible for governments to plan for 10 years because it extends beyond the forwards then this country is in trouble, because there are a lot of things take more than four years and there are a lot of things that you have to plan longer than four years for. It takes more than four years to train a doctor. It takes more than four years to get the skills in universities to train a doctor. It takes more than four years to build submarines and large boats. It takes more than four years to build an airport. It takes more than four years to educate a child. And it takes more than four years to get schools ready for the kind of work they need to do as our children grow. That is why Labor put in a substantial plan that actually was about the future.
It was a plan based on years of work consulting right across the education sector and it centred on the views of a man called Gonski—a person that the government refers to quite often. In his review, he came up with something that makes a great deal of sense. He pointed out, really, that the states and the Commonwealth together had been funding schools—the Commonwealth giving a bit more and the states a bit less, but no-one was really responsible. It sort of flicked backwards and forwards so we could both blame each other. He said something really simple: it is about the child. He said it is not about who funds it and it is not about whether it is a catholic, private or state school; it is actually about the needs of the child. He set about setting a standard for each child—a basic school resource standard plus a needs based loading, depending on the circumstances of the child.
He came up with this sector-blind needs based funding model which put the child at the centre and said to state and federal governments: 'Go and do your thing. Get together, work it out and make it happen.' That negotiation was hard. It was hard because not all of the states were in the same place. They do not all face the same challenges. There are parts of the Northern Territory, for example, where the children face far greater challenges than they do in my suburb—even though in my suburb there are quite substantial challenges, largely because of family background and history. Gonski said something really quite smart: 'Put the child at the centre, figure out what each child needs, set the school resource standard and add a needs based loading based on the fact that they are in a remote region, their English is poor or they have special needs. Work it out.' Then he set the Commonwealth a task: to work with states to work it out.
And we did, in the most—but not with all states. I will say that up-front. It was a hard negotiation. We said that the funding needed to increase and, if the federal government put in 65 per cent of extra funding, the states had to come up with 35 per cent. There was a hard-headed negotiation where we said, 'We'll put in the bulk of the increase, but you have to do your share.' Again, they were hard negotiations. Some states came on very easily and some states came on with greater difficulty. The deals that we did varied between each state because the circumstances varied. The Prime Minister seems to think that is a bad thing—that every deal you do with every person has to be the same—but that is not the world that we live in. That is not transparency; that is simplistic. Every state was different and there was hard negotiation, but we actually managed to do it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Parramatta will be given an opportunity at that time to complete her speech.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Ramadan
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (13:30): I make it a habit of standing up and wishing best wishes to the various cultural and religious festivals that are celebrated around the world. Many members would be aware that in the last few days those whose faith is Islam have started to observe what for them is the holiest month in the Islamic calendar, and that is the month of Ramadan. It is a month taken up and dedicated to prayer, to fasting and also to acts of charity. There are shared histories in many faiths of those three things, although I must say the Islamic approach to fasting makes Lent look pretty ordinary in terms of my own tradition.
It is hard to imagine how it can be anything other than good for Australia or for the world to have large numbers of people in deep contemplation, large numbers of people being willing to go without and large numbers of people being willing to act in acts of charity. On behalf of the Labor Party, I certainly wish all of those observing the month of Ramadan the very best.
I encourage all members: if you are ever up late at night in Lakemba over the next month, just turn up. The streets are full, there is goodwill all around and it is a beautiful time. To everyone observing Ramadan: Ramadan Kareem.
Wilhelm, Mrs Shirley, OAM, PHF
Mr PASIN (Barker) (13:31): I rise today to pay tribute to Shirley Wilhelm, OAM and Paul Harris Fellow. Born in 1930, Shirley grew up on a farm at Monarto South before marrying Maurice Wilhelm in 1950 and moving to live on a dairy farm at Mannum with Maurice and his parents. Between milking cows, cooking and serving five meals a day, raising three children and keeping house, Shirley also found time to contribute to her community. The list of these contributions is long and exemplifies the dedication and hard work Shirley had for her community throughout her life.
She was a founding member of the Younghusband branch of the Women's Agricultural Bureau, serving as president in 1957. She judged cooking and preserves for eight regional country shows a year and managed the church's guild thrift shop. She was catering secretary for the Murray Bridge Lutheran Ladies Guild. She was an active member of the Friends of Lerwin Nursing home and volunteer with the St John Ambulance service.
There is no question that the list is long and impressive. Shirley served as state president of the Women's Agricultural Bureau, during which time she initiated the first health hotline for regional citizens. Shirley was eventually awarded life membership. Life membership was also awarded to Shirley from the Murray Bridge Show Society. Shirley was the first female Rotary member in Murray Bridge, joining the Mobilong Club in 1993, and went on to serve as its first female president in 2001.
Her vast volunteer work was recognised in 2012, when Shirley was awarded the Order of Australia medal. Shirley's life was one of service—service to her family, her church and her community. Shirley's quiet influence and generosity will never be forgotten. Vale Shirley Wilhelm OAM.
Building and Construction Industry
Mr ROB MITCHELL (McEwen) (13:33): We are going to try round 2. I will talk about phoenixing in a minute. First of all, for those playing 'name that MP' at home, now the microphones are working, with our good friends Kristina Keneally and Peter van Onselen, my name is Rob Mitchell and I am the federal member for McEwen.
Dodgy phoenix schemes are costing Australians over $3 billion every year. They have a devastating impact, particularly across the seat of McEwen. In our community, both the economic and social costs of these illegal activities are enormous. We see example after example of companies putting themselves under administration only to rise from the ashes the very next day, owing thousands and thousands of dollars to their subbies and suppliers and leaving everyday families in financial strife.
Phoenix companies are too easy, cheap, lucrative and invisible. ASIC has been urged time and time again to crack down on them. Why hasn't the Turnbull government acted? Why have we seen no serious steps to protect Australians from these costly and dodgy activities? Throughout my electorate I have seen the impacts of these heartless tactics, in Doreen, Gisborne, Mernda and Wallan.
It is time the government did something about this. It should join with the member for Fenner in putting this to the test and putting it to the Australian parliament. We need to stop people getting ripped off and stop watching people lose their livelihoods. Workers come home and realise the money they have been owed has not been paid, and meanwhile some dodgy builder will open up the next day under a new name.
Durack Electorate: Wynston Shovellor-Sesar
Ms PRICE (Durack) (13:34): I rise today to speak of a constituent of mine, a ranger from the Kimberley, Wynston Shovellor-Sesar. Wynston was here in parliament last week for the National Indigenous Youth Parliament 2017, a fantastic initiative which allows our young Indigenous people to travel from around the country to join with other young Indigenous leaders. The National Indigenous Youth Parliament gives our future young Indigenous leaders exposure to the democratic process and gives them an insight into a career in politics, including participating in a debate at Old Parliament House.
I first met Wynston a couple of years ago in Kununurra, and it is really pleasing to see how much he has matured and grown since that meeting. Wynston is now working as a ranger in the Kimberley, but he has big plans of his own. Many in this House will be aware of the success that the Indigenous Ranger Program has had in regional and remote Australia, combining traditional knowledge of land management with modern tools and training. This allows Indigenous people to be paid to work on country whilst conserving and protecting their land. It is a very valuable program, and Wynston is a fine example of a participant on that program. I wish Wynston all the best and I look forward to seeing him develop as a future Kimberley leader.
Medicare
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (13:36): Once again the Turnbull government's Medicare agenda has been exposed, with the government-appointed task force reportedly considering a proposal that would see the Commonwealth's public hospital funding share cut from around 40 per cent to 35 per cent of costs. The leaked confidential reports also confirm that, under the proposal, private health insurance rebates will be abolished and the Commonwealth would not provide any support for health insurance extras such as physiotherapy and dental costs.
First it was an attack on doctors, with a six-year freeze on doctors' Medicare rebates and then a proposal for a $7 GP co-payment, which went to $5 and then $20. And now it seems the target is public hospitals. Having already cut billions of dollars from public hospital funding, if the Commonwealth cuts funding even further, the states will have no option but to charge patient fees, just as the government wanted GPs to do. It is another backdoor attack on Medicare.
The minister's rejection of this proposal is not convincing. The leaked report arises from the work of a government initiated and selected task force that would be acting on government instructions. Perhaps the minister could tell us just what those instructions are. What is clear from this latest link is that this coalition government cannot be trusted with the future of Medicare.
Adani Coalmine
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (13:37): I want to express to the House my appreciation of Adani for their commitment to purchase $74 million work of steel rail from Whyalla Steelworks. I am very concerned at the moment about the vacillation of the Queensland government, who do not seem to know whether they are coming or going on this issue. I, the electorate of Grey and, most specifically, the people of Whyalla have a special interest in this issue. We are reaching the pointy end of the negotiation of a successful sale of Arrium and, coming on top of the order from the Commonwealth government for the Adelaide to Tarcoola line, the $49 million loan for the two new beneficiation plants in the nearby mines is sending a strong signal to the buyers that there is a great future for Whyalla and for making steel in Australia.
Backing the Adani mine is backing Australian jobs. I cannot tell this House just how vital the Arrium business is to the city of Whyalla and the material impact a loss of this order would have on its future. My great concern is that the Queensland government is succumbing to organised pressure from the extreme left, with no less than a GetUp! campaign. Just to put people in the picture, I had a call to my office in the last couple of days from a constituent who expressed opposition to the Adani mine going ahead. Once we discussed the issue with her and found out the problems, she said: 'I don't know anything about this, but I was told by GetUp! to ring.' She was told to ring about something that she knew nothing about. (Time expired)
Indigenous Affairs
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (13:39): Last Saturday, 27 May, was the 50th anniversary of the successful 1967 referendum, which sought to ensure Indigenous Australians were included as respected members of the Australian community. This Saturday, 3 June, marks 20 years since the Mabo decision of the High Court, a landmark decision which reflected the 50,000-year-old truth that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have lived on this vast island for many thousands of years and have legal and moral land rights that continue to this day, and will do so always.
This week, as always, these critical moments in Australian history bookend the very important National Reconciliation Week. On Friday 26 May, we saw the Uluru Statement from the Heart given to this nation by our first nation's people. Aboriginal people were asked the question and, with a remarkable, generous spirit—and despite all the wrongs wrought upon them over 230 years—they gave us a thoughtful answer, which we in this place must respect, listen to and act upon.
The burden to ensure equality of rights and treatment of Australia's first people has so far been carried by a few—our Indigenous brothers and sisters and other leaders who have supported these just causes. Now it is time to share this burden across the country. Each of us will be called upon to show leadership and to have open hearts and open minds so that we can all contribute to what should be a national crusade: a national crusade to ensure that the truth is heard, that voices are heard, that rights are enshrined and that reconciliation is real.
Fadden Electorate: Landcare
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (13:40): I wish to highlight to the House some of the great work one of the local families—the Stewart family—on the Gold Coast is doing with Landcare.
The Stewart family has been on the coast for over 120 years. That family gave three sons to the Great War—Robert, William and George. Indeed, 154 mothers gave three sons to the Great War. That family has been on the land on the Gold Coast for over a century. Ken Stewart still lives on the property there; it is a large property of over 100 acres by the river and, of course, the road is called Stewart Road. Twenty-five years ago, Ken saw the effect that rising floodwaters have on the land and the residual riparian area—the river banks—so he started planting trees. Every weekend he and some mates planted thousands and thousands of trees, and Landcare joined them years afterwards. There are beautiful silky oaks and bottlebrush—all Australian varieties. To look at it now, it really is a wildlife sanctuary. These are the old farmers, caring for the land in the way that is best.
A month ago, after that dreadful cyclone we had, we had some of the greatest floods we have seen in over 100 years. Where I stood with Ken, the water would have been over our heads, and yet you would not notice the impact because of the work he had the other team did, starting 25 years ago.
So, well done to Ken Stewart. I thank Minister Hartsuyker for coming and joining me for the day, and well done to Landcare.
Melbourne Electorate: National Sorry Day
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (13:42): Friday was an historic day. From Uluru, a powerful statement was made by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples: that in 1967 they were counted and in 2017 they were seeking to be heard.
At the very time that the Uluru Statement from the Heart was delivered, in my electorate of Melbourne—on Wurundjeri land—members of the stolen generations gathered to mark National Sorry Day with families, friends, communities and supporters. On the 20th anniversary of the Bringing them home report, people spoke of the loss of those who were taken away. Flowers were laid and a smoking ceremony was held.
The Melbourne commemoration was organised by Connecting Home and Link Up Victoria. I would like to acknowledge these organisations for their important work in supporting members of the stolen generations, and in creating awareness in the community about the ongoing impacts of child removal policies.
Speakers at the commemoration made the clear call: do not let this happen again. Do not let more children be taken away. And yet, 20 years on, governments have failed to act on too many recommendations, and many people are warning of a new stolen generation. Let's be very clear: this is unfinished business to take care of. It is time for truth telling about our history and our present. It is time for reparations for the stolen generations. It is time for a meaningful and substantive change to our institutions and it is time to acknowledge that the sovereignty of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples has never been ceded. It is time for a treaty and it is time for those of us in this place to listen and to take action.
Gilmore Electorate: Berry Celtic Festival
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (13:43): On Saturday 27 May I attended the 11th annual Berry Celtic Festival. It was great to be chauffeured to the meeting point in Mike and Deirdre's 'chitty chitty bang bang' car and then to ride in the horse and carriage in the parade featuring the amazing pipe and drum bands.
This year the Isle of Man were the featured Celts. The activities included jousting; Celtic singing; pipe band marching; Celtic fiddlers; Highland dancing; clan representatives, medieval knights—which were tremendous; vintage cars and motorcycles; and Scottish terrier dogs.
Over 11 years, the Berry Celtic Festival has raised more than $100,000 for local cancer support services in the Shoalhaven—initially for the linear accelerator that is now in the Shoalhaven because of universal local community support. They are now raising money for Can Assist.
I am proud to take this opportunity to say that the health budget is also taking cancer seriously, with $230 million funding for cancer treatments, screening and research, including cervical cancer screening; mammogram screening for women 50 to 74 years of age; more prostate cancer nurses; fighting childhood cancer, which includes paediatric brain cancer clinical trials; $5 million to CanTeen; as well as $68 million towards the establishment of Australia's first proton beam therapy facility. Congratulations to the Rotary Club of Berry, Berry Celtic Festival Coordinator John Brentnall and Secretary Mary Seelis, all our regional Rotarians, sponsors Berry IGA and Raine and Horne Berry, the Berry Showground Trust and the Berry Chamber of Commerce.
Bendigo Bank Community Bank
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:45): There is an alternative to the big four, than banking with the big four banks. I speak about the fantastic network of Bendigo Bank Community Bank branches. They are very different to our commercial banks. They have a community-run board. Also, profits made by these banks are invested straight back into the community. It is something that we are very proud of in the Bendigo network. Established in the nineties, there are now 313 of these Community Bank branches around Australia. They have invested $165 million back into our communities and into many of our communities most in need of support.
In my own electorate of Bendigo, the Heathcote & District Community Bank branch of the Bendigo Bank and the Maldon and district financial services Community Bank branch have invested significantly. In fact, 138 projects have been supported and close to $250,000 just last financial year alone. This is just a demonstration that there is another way to do banking. There are opportunities out there to support Community Bank branches. They, basically, encourage people to bank locally to ensure that profits remain local. I know that from a number of the sporting clubs, Landcare groups and schools. They would be lost without this critical investment. This is how we can be supporting our communities, and I congratulate the Bendigo Bank for this initiative.
Forde Electorate: Brigalow Country Community Club
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (13:46): I take this opportunity to congratulate one of the great organisations in the great electorate of Forde, the Brigalow Country Community Club, for their efforts hosting a stellar City of Logan Relay for Life fundraising event on Saturday. The club has already raised over $1,000 towards the 2017 City of Logan Relay for Life, before Saturday's event, and its members deserve high praise for pulling together to increase that total as much as possible on the weekend. I believe the total figure is still to be counted, but I can assure you it will be one that everyone is very proud of. Most of all, thanks must go to the event organiser and our 2017 City of Logan Face of Relay, Mick Noble, who, along with brother Max, work tirelessly to bring Saturday together. Mr Noble is a cancer survivor and a true inspiration to all the men, women and children who will take part on the track as part of the relay in just a few days' time. The City of Logan Relay for Life is one of the great traditions in my electorate. The event raises much needed funds and awareness for individuals and their families battling cancer. Its support is absolutely irreplaceable in our community. What a pleasure it has been already to see our relay teams working hard yet again to support this amazing cause. I am sure our 2017 relay, being held at Dauth Park in Beenleigh on the weekend will be a great success. (Time expired)
Foster, Mr Anthony
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (13:48): Survivors of child sexual abuse lost one of their greatest advocates last Friday with the death of Anthony Foster. Anthony passed away just a few months before the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse is due to hand down its final report—a royal commission that his tireless advocacy did so much to bring about. Mr Foster and his wife, Chrissie, told the royal commission their horrific story of their family's treatment at the hands of Catholic priests. They attended hundreds of hearings at the royal commission, providing support and strength to survivors telling their own stories. Anthony's daughters, Emma and Katie, were sexually assaulted by a paedophile priest when they were in primary school. Emma died at the age of 26 from a drug overdose after years of battling eating disorders and drug addiction. Katie, too, suffered, and tragically was left profoundly disabled after being hit by a drunk driver. Yet Anthony was able to turn the pain and suffering that he and his family had experienced into a fight for justice for survivors of child sexual abuse. As his family stated on the weekend, 'Anthony's heart was so big—he fought for others to make sure that what happened to our family could not happen to anyone else.' Our thoughts are with the Foster family, and I hope that Anthony's courage in his life gives others the strength to speak out and advocate for justice for survivors of child sexual abuse.
Sheldrake, Mr Kein
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (13:50): Today I would like to share the story of a very impressive young man who studies at Belmont State School in my electorate of Bonner. Kein Sheldrake has achieved amazing things at just 11 years of age. He currently builds and refurbishes computers and donates them to children and families who could not otherwise afford them. This is remarkable in itself, but it is the story behind his work that has touched me deeply and deserves recognition. Last year, Kein taught himself how to build a PC by watching YouTube videos. After successfully building his first computers, he decided to use his skills to provide for others less well off. With the help of his mum, Michelle, he set up a GoFundMe page in January to raise funds to help him build and refurbish PCs for kids whose families could not afford them. He was able to make contacts in the community, and was put onto a service that does work with refugee families. So far two of his computers have gone to refugees from the Congo. Kein's enthusiasm for helping those in need is admirable, and I commend him for helping give others access to technology and to the internet. Michelle recently told me that her son has Asperger's syndrome. She wanted me to mention this to show how a condition such as Asperger's does not have to prevent a person from following their passion. I have to agree. Well done to Kein, who has a very promising future in his dream career of IT.
National Broadband Network
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:51): I have been running a campaign called Send Me Your Speeds for about 12 months now. It is in response to the government's inability to put Canberra on the NBN rollout map. Finally we are on the rollout map, but now I want Canberra prioritised on the rollout map. This is the reason why I will read some of these shocking speeds. Gordon in Gordon: download speed of 1.86 megabits per second, upload 0.76. Jenny in Hughes: download 0.78, upload 0.89. Charlotte in Deakin: download 0.28, upload 0.34. Doug in Pearce: download 7.27, upload 0.59. Al in Kambah: download 2.13, upload 0.24. Poor old Adam in Chisholm: download 0.21, upload 0.03. As Adam said, 'I went to the recommended speed test website, and unfortunately my internet speed is too slow for it to be brought up. It has managed to load about four lines of a picture in the past five to 10 minutes, which, from memory, is slower than my dial-up speeds that I had back in the 1990s.' As one of the residents said, 'All in all, I would be better off being a cow in Wagga than living in Canberra with these speeds.' Keep sending your speeds, Canberra.
Member for Hasluck
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (13:53): Coming to Canberra in 2010 as a new member, I found the orientation somewhat disorientating. Similarly to the first day of school, I gravitated to those who seemed to share my level of apprehension. The member for Hasluck and the member for Longman became friends. Ken laughed when I revealed that I had shoes older than Wyatt Roy. What I did not reveal was that the hardly worn suit I was wearing was also older than our young colleague. I was seated behind Ken for his maiden speech and was deeply moved by my new friend, so worthy of respect and admiration. I gathered myself, however, and attacked him for his total disregard and lack of consideration for his new friends, now former friends, who had to follow his extraordinary contribution with their maiden speeches. We laughed more, knowing that we shared the common Australian bond of our unique humour and the ability to convey our most sincere feelings, thoughts and emotions that men of our age sometimes find difficult.
Ken, you have been honoured today as much for your achievements as for the manner in which you have achieved them. Today you united all those who represent us, as our respective leaders freely acknowledged, which makes this a happy day for our nation. Congratulations to you and Anna.
Oxley Electorate: Westside Christian College
Mr DICK (Oxley) (13:54): Last Friday I had the pleasure of attending the 40th anniversary dedication service at Westside Christian College in Goodna. Led by Principal Barry Leverton, the morning was a great success and was attended by hundreds of current teachers, past teachers, students, parents and supporters as the school celebrated this significant milestone. The school was first formed by a small band of people who desired to establish a parent controlled Christian school. That came to be in 1977, under the name of Goodna Christian School, to later become Westside Christian College. From small beginnings, Westside Christian College is now the oldest Christian independent school in Queensland, spanning two campuses and educating over 1,000 students each year.
As Principal Barry Leverton put it so simply, 'A school is not just bricks and mortar; it is made up of the people, past and present, who establish culture that gives the warm and friendly atmosphere that Westside Christian College is today.' That is evident through the stories, like that of the head of the junior primary, Rechelle Edwards, who first applied for the role of a year 1 teacher in 1986 and is still teaching at the school 30 years later. I pay tribute to the board members, staff, parents and supporters who, throughout the last 40 years, have established Westside Christian College as a light in the local community. I wish them all the best for their next 40 years.
Central Coast Century Challenge Cycle Ride
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (13:56): I rise to acknowledge the outstanding work of the Rotary Clubs of Erina and Gosford North in my electorate of Robertson. Just last week the two clubs joined forces to host the 17th annual Central Coast Century Challenge Cycle Ride at the Mt Penang Parklands in Kariong. The cycle challenge has four categories for the ride, for everyone. Whether it is the kids' challenge, where they dressed up as superheroes and looked fantastic, or the 20-kilometre, the 50-kilometre or the gruelling 100-kilometre challenge, the ride winds through the picturesque hinterland of the Central Coast, through the hills of Somersby and Mangrove Mountain, and it is certainly a challenge. I was thrilled to be able to attend this year's event and wave off the hundreds of riders taking part in support of an outstanding organisation, Coast Shelter. Each year the Century Challenge raises vital funds for Coast Shelter in Gosford, which has operated on the Central Coast for some 25 years. It provides vital support and accommodation for those in our community who are doing it tough and provides over 1,000 free meals every week to those who need it most.
I would also like to pay tribute to the Bendigo Community Bank branches at East Gosford, Ettalong, Kincumber, Lisarow and Wyong, who came onboard this year to sponsor the event. In doing so, I acknowledge also the support of Bikeworx, Priceline Pharmacy at Woy Woy, The Edge Cycles, Champion Chiropractic Centre, Erina Leagues Club and East Coast Beverages. So, congratulations to the Rotary Clubs of Erina and Gosford North, the local sponsors and of course each and every rider who took part, making this year's event a success. (Time expired)
Lalor Electorate: Baden Powell College
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:57): I rise to share with the House a trip I did on Friday, visiting both campuses of Baden Powell College. The culmination of Baden Powell College's Education Week was a day celebrating diversity, with the theme 'Diversity Is Our Strength'. I attended the launches at both campuses with community members, Wyndham City Councillor Heather Marcus, Rotary representatives and Judy, who did the welcome to country.
I would like to thank Principal Julie Mason and school council president Rebecca Bruest for inviting me to this extraordinary event. At the Tarneit campus we heard a Koori lullaby, we had the Pacific Allsorts present a haka, we had African dances and at both schools we had the bagpipes playing the National Anthem and choirs joining in. The theme was strength in diversity, and there were 50 countries and 61 languages represented in this great school community. I went to celebrate the work the school does in social cohesion, in building this country's prosperity, and the excellent educational outcomes. You could not help but be optimistic looking into the faces of that multicultural community at both campuses and knowing what a great future this country has in their hands.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): I remind members to keep the noise down.
Saunders, Mr David
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (13:59): As I travel around my vast electorate of O'Connor, I get to see some amazing volunteers making a huge difference in their communities. I was recently privileged to meet Dave Saunders and his wife, Inez, while visiting the town of Collie. Dave has been a St John Ambulance volunteer for 52 years—a remarkable feat.
Not only did I get to thank Dave for his hard work and commitment to volunteering, but also I was able to congratulate him on being promoted to the status of Commander of the Order of St John. Commander status recognises outstanding leadership and service to the community and St John Ambulance, and it is not easily achieved. Dave is only the second person in Collie ever to receive this recognition in the history of St John Ambulance and is one of only 28 commanders currently in Western Australia.
Dave has committed countless hours to St John over the years, either on shift, training and recruiting new volunteers, or heading up renovations at the Collie sub-centre. Dave's unwavering dedication and leadership has created a positive workplace culture within the Collie depot. It is clear that Dave is well respected by his colleagues for his knowledge, experience and commitment to St John.
He gave me a tour of the Collie ambulance depot, and I inspected the renovations he oversaw a couple of years ago. Dave has certainly achieved his goal of making the depot more comfortable and practical for the members.
Promotion to commander is an exceptional accolade for Dave and shows the hard work and dedication he has invested in St John Ambulance these past 52 years. The only promotion left for Dave is to become a Knight of St John, which I am sure Dave will achieve one day.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
The SPEAKER (14:01): Are there any questions? Our guest is just about to enter the chamber, so we might wait. So members know, I was not tardy in being here a minute after 2 o'clock!
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:02): I thank members for their indulgence. I would like to inform the House that we have present in the chamber this afternoon distinguished United States Senator for the state of Arizona, Senator John McCain. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:02): Senator McCain, welcome back to Australia. It is such an honour to have you here on the floor of the House of Representatives.
Senator McCain has led a life of leadership, of public service and of selfless courage. As a prisoner of war for 5½ years, he selflessly, despite torture and cruelty, refused to be transferred back to the United States in advance of his colleagues—true leadership; true grit; true courage.
And then he has gone on to serve the people of the United States in the Congress and the Senate, where he is now chair of the Armed Services Committee. He has run for President of the United States. And can I say that, here in this House, we can acknowledge Senator McCain as one of the strongest voices—none stronger—in the United States today for the Australian-American alliance. He has embodied it. His grandfather, John McCain, as a sailor in the US Navy, visited Australia in 1908, in the Great White Fleet which visited at the request of Prime Minister Alfred Deakin. His father served in the US Navy, as his grandfather had done and as he has done, and served for part of the Second World War in Perth.
Of course, as Senator McCain has done throughout his life, he has spoken of the importance, of the bedrock, of the Australia-US alliance. He said earlier this year:
… Australia is one of America’s oldest friends and staunchest allies. We are united by ties of family and friendship, mutual interests and common values, and shared sacrifice in wartime.
Today the brave men and women of the Australian Defence Force and the United States defence forces once again, as they always have and always will, are serving shoulder to shoulder in freedom's cause to defeat terrorism and keep us safe at home and abroad.
I conclude this welcome by noting a fact perhaps not so well-known to honourable members—the senator shares one of our great national passions, rugby football, and I understand he is looking forward to the United States reclaiming its status as rugby world champions. The United States won the gold medal for rugby union at the 1924 Paris Olympics and remained reigning champions until rugby was played again in Rio last year. Senator McCain, you are among friends, you are a great friend of Australia—welcome to our house of democracy here in Canberra.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:06): Senator McCain, I echo the comments of our Prime Minister. It is indeed an honour to welcome you to our country and to our parliament. I cannot promise that your visit will guarantee better behaviour during question time but I certainly believe that our parliament is better for your presence. I think you represent all of what we hope our alliance should be, and the fact that you are the third generation of your family to help put meaning to the close relationship between Australia and the United States is testament to the importance of your visit. You served alongside Australians in the Vietnam conflict, as did your father and your grandfather in the Second World War—your father a submarine commander and your grandfather the commander of a carrier fleet in the Pacific. Yours has been a life lived in the service of your country, but I think what gives you a special quality is that your courage and your integrity set an example for citizens of all nations.
Senator, you once said that you fell in love with your country while you were a prisoner in someone else's. After your A4 Skyhawk was shot down, and through 5½ years of unimaginable pain, you held on to the idea of America—in your words, 'its faith in the wisdom, justice and goodness of its people'. Senator, our two nations' alliance is a friendship built upon shared sacrifice for common cause. We hold to that same idea, that same faith in people—the same belief in what the idea of America represents, not just for your citizens but for everyone around the world who believes that we are all created equal.
In our meeting immediately prior to question time I asked you a question which no doubt you have been asked thousands of times: how did you get through that 5½ years? When we see that sort of human struggle we all ask ourselves, 'How?' You replied that you had faith in God, faith in your country and faith in your fellow prisoners, and you gave a valuable insight. You explained to me that you believed that your captors wanted to convince you there was no chance of release, and they wanted you to give up hope—and you never did, and your faith in your fellow prisoners was part of that. You reminded me then that that is why the constant fight for human rights everywhere is a struggle just as important now as it was then, and that lesson from then applies now. When people are being encouraged to give up on their human rights, to expect there is no release or no rescue, you said to me very clearly that that is an important quality that Australian democracy shares with American democracy—that wherever we go, we never give up the human rights of other people because when we do that we then give up their hope. You remind us that our democracies share that fundamental respect for the liberties of all. You are most welcome in this parliament.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
The SPEAKER: I thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. As you can see, Senator McCain, you are indeed very warmly welcomed here on the floor of the House of Representatives. Again, I welcome you to question time in the House of Representatives.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Disability Services
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:10): My question is to the Prime Minister. People with disability suffer far higher rates of violence than the rest of the community. Ninety per cent of women with intellectual disability have been sexually assaulted. Children with a disability are at least three times more likely to experience abuse than other children. Will the Prime Minister support the establishment of a royal commission into violence and abuse against people with disability? I acknowledge the advocacy of the Disabled People's Organisations Australia, VALID, AFDO and other community organisations who have called for this royal commission.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:10): The Leader of the Opposition and I spoke about this matter last week when I heard that he had raised the call for a royal commission. I was grateful for him explaining the circumstances of his call. As the minister will describe in more detail in a moment, we are setting in place the quality assurance framework so that when the NDIS is fully rolled out—this new institution will begin at the beginning of the next year—it will ensure that the quality of NDIS services is maintained and that matters of this kind do not occur.
I explained to the Leader of the Opposition, as we discussed it, that I believe these incidents that have been reported have occurred almost entirely in institutions under the jurisdiction of state and territory governments. Accordingly, I will be raising this at the COAG meeting next week when I meet with state and territory chief ministers. I can assure the honourable member that we are committed to the NDIS. I call on him again to fund it and to ensure that the NDIS is fully funded. We have set out the means to do it and the time has come not to be focused on the rhetoric or the politics but to pay for it. We need to pay for the NDIS. We have the means to do so, and we ask the Leader of the Opposition and his party to support it.
The SPEAKER: I also call the Minister for Social Services.
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (14:12): It is, of course, the case that everyone in this House would agree that violence, abuse, and the neglect of vulnerable people—particularly those with a disability—is utterly abhorrent and completely unacceptable. There may be differences of view as to how to approach that problem, but understanding the problem is the best guide to realising what is the best approach. At present, the governance in terms of quality, probity, assurance and standards of service in organisations where difficulties have essentially arisen is the responsibility of the states. We have a not particularly good system where there is a current arrangement that is heavily dependent on a patchwork of systems. They are operated across various states and they vary from state to state, and the level of consistency changes.
The agreement between all the states and territories as the best path forward is to establish an oversight on behalf of the Commonwealth. That will become the NDIS quality and safeguards commission. This very budget placed $209 million into the federal budget to fund that commission. The legislation for that commission will be coming to parliament this week. That will be a very significant structural reform to this area and the solution is action, not more inquiry.
Budget
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (14:13): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the steps the government is taking to guarantee the services that Australians rely on, grow the economy and generate jobs? Are there any threats to the government's approach?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:14): I thank the honourable member for his question. As honourable members know, our budget is delivering fairness, opportunity and security for all Australians. We are delivering on our promises and not saying one thing but doing another. We are guaranteeing Medicare through a new, dedicated Medicare Guarantee Fund, we are adding more lifesaving drugs to the PBS and we are overseeing record levels of bulk-billing. We want to ensure that Medicare is guaranteed and quarantined from cheap political scares and stunts such as we have seen from the Labor Party. They are long on rhetoric and short on delivery. We have listed more drugs, nearly four times as many drugs, on the PBS as they did in their time in office—new, life-saving drugs delivering, saving lives, making Australians well. That is what we have been doing with the PBS. Labor rationed it.
Labor talk about the National Disability Insurance Scheme. At first they said it was fully funded.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: They are still saying that.
The SPEAKER: The member for Moreton will cease interjecting.
Mr TURNBULL: But now they say they have a better way of funding it. The reality is that we cannot be sure where they stand. They are long on rhetoric and short on dollars. We are delivering on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We are fully funding it with an extra half a per cent on the Medicare levy.
Labor has the opportunity to rise above petty partisanship, as the majority of their shadow cabinet told the Leader of the Opposition, as the member for Grayndler knows is right and just. Support this measure. It is utterly consistent with the steps Labor took in office when they raised the Medicare levy by half a per cent. Every single argument the Leader of the Opposition addressed then is valid today, but he is deaf to it because he is all tactics and no strategy, he is all rhetoric and no integrity, and he is all political games and no consistency. One thing today, another thing tomorrow. There is no true line through the Leader of the Opposition except his own self-interest. All politics, no policy.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: The member for Isaacs calls out 'fairness'. Well, fairness is a faint hope on that side of the House, just a faint cry. It is good to see there is still somebody talking about fairness on the Labor side. It is a pity nobody is doing anything about it.
Then we see the extraordinary hypocrisy on the matter of schools. For years they talked about needs based funding. For years they talked about David Gonski. We are delivering needs based funding. We are delivering Gonski's vision. We are delivering it transparently, fairly, consistently across the nation. Labor has betrayed it. (Time expired)
Health Care
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (14:17): My question is to the Prime Minister. This morning the health minister said that the government's latest secret Medicare task force 'long predates me'. Prime Minister, how can your health minister possibly claim his secret Medicare task force predates him when he was sworn in as the Minister for Health in January, the secret Medicare task force met on 28 March and the task force proposal was again discussed just two weeks ago?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:17): The honourable member is following firmly and faithfully in the footsteps of her leader with the dishonest Mediscare campaign they ran in the last election. Let me be quite clear: we are guaranteeing Medicare, we are backing Medicare and we are funding it with more dollars than ever. And we are funding the PBS with more dollars than ever. The so-called secret is nonsense. The media reports were incorrect. The honourable member is incorrect. The matter she described is not government policy. It will not be government policy.
The minister has clearly and emphatically explained, as has the secretary of his department, that there are no plans to implement a hospital benefit, which, given that the purpose of such a policy as far as I can divine would be to undermine the private health insurance system, you would imagine would be an unlikely policy to come from our side of the House in any event—it is much more likely to come from the Labor side, I would imagine. The fact is Labor knows that their lies about Medicare are being found out, and desperate as ever they grab for one new conspiracy theory after another. The facts are that we are backing Medicare and we are guaranteeing Medicare. We are funding the PBS and we are putting drugs on the PBS that Labor would not. We are putting drugs on the PBS that save lives, that make sick Australians well, that improve their quality of life—drugs that Labor would not put on the PBS. Try explaining that to a patient. Try explaining that to one of the thousands of Australians who are benefiting from our stewardship of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. All your conspiracy theories and plots, all your secrets and scares, do not make one Australian well. They do not make up for the years of neglect of Australians who needed life-saving drugs. We have delivered. Our record is clear. We guarantee Medicare, we fund the PBS, we are defending the health of Australians. Labor are abusing it, taking advantage of it, frightening the vulnerable and, in their desperate scare campaigns, they demean their party, their record and this parliament.
The SPEAKER: Before I call anyone, I caution the members for Lalor, Cowan and Bruce. They know how it progresses from here. The member for Ballarat is seeking to table a document?
Ms Catherine King: Yes, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the transcript from Senate estimates which shows—
The SPEAKER: The member for Ballarat will resume her seat. I now caution the member for Ballarat on two counts. I think she knows full well, given the number of times we have done this, that we do not allow documents to be tabled that are already part of the parliamentary record. Secondly, and more importantly, when she is asked to resume her seat she needs to do so straightaway and not engage in debate; otherwise, she will be leaving the chamber under 94(a)—as she has done before. The member for Mackellar.
Budget
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (14:21): My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer outline for the House the government's commitment to fully funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme and other services while bringing the budget back into surplus and living within our means? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:21): I thank the member for Mackellar for his question and his concern and support for the fact that this government is guaranteeing essential services in this budget. Importantly, the Turnbull government decided in this budget—made the right choice—to say yes to fully funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme, a $55.7 billion black hole left by those opposite for funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We have said yes to ensuring the full funding of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The Labor Party have said no. They are saying no to fully funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We are saying yes to giving certainty to Australians and their families who are living with a disability, and the Labor Party have chosen to deny that certainty to Australians living with a disability by saying no.
Former Labor Minister John Della Bosca, who ran the Every Australian Counts campaign, has said very clearly that he was calling on this government to fully fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme and, indeed, he was directly calling on me to do that. In this budget, we said yes to the Every Australian Counts campaign; and those opposite, the Labor Party, said no to that campaign, said no to fully funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Mr Della Bosca has said our choice to say yes to fully fund that scheme through a half a percentage point increase in the Medicare levy is a win for every Australian. He said it means people with a disability in Australia finally have certainty. And he has called on the Labor Party and minor parties not to compromise the bipartisanship that has existed since the National Disability Insurance Scheme was first introduced—supported by those in the Liberal and National parties—by standing in the way of ensuring this guaranteed funding. He also said we all have a role to play. And it is important to understand what sits behind our proposal to fully fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which we have said yes to.
We have also said yes to guaranteeing Medicare. We have also said yes to needs-based funding in our schools. We have said yes to first home buyers, who deserve a tax cut so they can save for their first home. We have said yes to small businesses to lower their tax and we have said yes to ensure we bring the budget back into balance. And we know that the ratings agencies have responded to all of this by saying yes to our AAA rating after the budget. But those opposite continue to say no. They continue to say no to those who want the certainty of fully funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme and to parents who want the certainty of the school funding which the government is offering. This government will stand in the middle ready to work with the parliament to get these things done. The Labor Party just want to say no.
Medicare
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (14:25): My question is to the Prime Minister. This morning the Minister
for Health said he would put a stop to the proposal from the government's secret Medicare task force before the 24 March COAG meeting. Why did the government's secret Medicare task force meet on 28 March, and its proposal was again discussed just two weeks ago? And why did the deputy secretary of the health department today confirm that the government will continue to engage with the secret Medicare task force? If the task force has been stopped, how come it is still going?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (14:25): Let me put a very simple proposition: Labor hates private health insurance. We love private health insurance. This idea that they are proposing is not government policy, will not be government policy and will never be government policy under the coalition.
Do you know what? When I first heard about this, when we first discussed it in February, on the first day that I discussed this with the department I took it off, rejected it from the COAG agenda and said: 'No, thank you. There's a reason we're not doing it. It sounds like Labor policy.' And do you know what? It is Labor policy. Here is what we saw on the front—
The SPEAKER: The minister knows the rules on props.
Mr HUNT: I am reading through my notes, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: The minister will remove his prop.
Mr HUNT: 'Fears ALP to axe $6bn health insurance rebate'. Labor's plan to scrap $6 billion rebate would 'destroy' Medicare. That was on the front page of The Australian only a month ago. It further states:
The private health insurancerebate could face further cuts under Labor after confidential discussions between insurance groups and the opposition sparked fears the $6 billion rebate could be abolished …
There we have the shadow Treasurer with his head down now. He knows we have caught him ratting around and briefing private health insurance groups that he wanted to do what the member for Sydney did, and that is rip the heart out of private health insurance. Last time, before Labor came into government, they said that they would not touch private health insurance. What did the member for Sydney say after they left government? 'How did I pay for it? I paid for it by targeting private health insurance.' That is what the member for Sydney did. She ripped the heart out of private health insurance, and that is what the shadow Treasurer has been doing. They have been caught going around the private health insurance groups, looking to strip private health insurance and then to abolish it. Let me be absolutely clear: this idea of a Commonwealth hospital benefit is rejected clearly, categorically and absolutely.
Victoria: Rail Infrastructure
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (14:28): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. On May 10, the Prime Minister assured the House that the government commitment of $100 million would fix the problem for the North East train line. Senate estimates has revealed that the Commonwealth is seeking a co-contribution from the Victorian government. It is a matter yet to be resolved and has made an already complex problem even more so. Clearly, the Victorian government is part of the solution but the answer is not only funding; it needs leadership and collaboration. Minister, a deeply personal request: will you please take a leadership role and bring together the ARTC, relevant departments, V/Line, PTV and New South Wales Trains to develop a plan that will fix this problem?
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (14:29): I thank the member for Indi for her question and her interest in the infrastructure portfolio. It is an opportunity for me to outline how the Turnbull-Joyce government is approaching the job of getting on with delivering the infrastructure that Victorians need and in fact the people of Indi want. The budget did feature $75 billion over 10 years for building the projects that our kids and our grandkids will certainly thank us for in the future. The member for Indi referred to rail funding. It was a good budget for rail, with the $8.4 billion equity investment, the ARTC, the Inland Rail project and the $10 billion for the National Rail Program.
I can confirm, in answer to the member for Indi's question, that there is a $100 million commitment to the North East line as part of the $1 billion in new investments for Victoria which were announced in the budget. I can also confirm that I will be working with her and with her community in how we deliver that $100 million for improvements to the North East line. The Prime Minister himself previously indicated that that will allow for improvements to ride quality. It will also seek to improve the passenger rail service, and we will consult with the community and ARTC to prioritise that investment in the weeks and months ahead. The member is aware that the consultation has already started. I recently met with representatives of the Border Rail Action Group in her electorate, and they are certainly excited about the funding allocation and keen to see further commitments from the Victorian government in relation to the rolling stock issue.
The Turnbull-Joyce government is investing in the future of regional Victoria. We allocated $30 million for the development of a business case for the Melbourne Airport Rail Link. Remember: Labor has been in power for 14 of the past 18 years in Victoria and has not done anything to secure a rail link to the Tullamarine airport. Thanks to the federal government, there is plenty of work underway in regional Victoria that is creating jobs and improving connectivity throughout our regional areas.
The member for Corangamite is certainly excited about the $100 million for her rail link on top of the funding allocated to the Great Ocean Road. The member for McMillan is excited about the $195 million for rail improvements along the Gippsland line. The member for Murray is excited about the $10 million for the Shep line, which will involve more planning there but which also comes on top of the Echuca-Moama bridge funding.
I raise these projects because the member for Indi asked me about co-contribution. It is perfectly normal for the federal government to expect a state government to make a contribution to a major transport project of this scale. I have said on many occasions—and I actually said it in the seat of Indi when I was visiting there recently—that the Premier cannot expect a free ride on this. With the $1.5 billion allocated for projects utilising money previously allocated for the East West Link, we sought and we secured last year a matching contribution from the state government. So the Andrews government will have to come to the party.
In summary, and to set the record straight for the member for Indi, I have been involved in positive and constructive conversations with the Minister for Public Transport. I expect those negotiations to continue. We have met privately, and our offices have also been holding some discussions. I will take the opportunity to keep the member informed as we progress. (Time expired)
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (14:32): My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Will the minister update the House on the government's broad-ranging disability reforms, including the National Disability Insurance Scheme and how this will improve the lives of the people with disability, especially those in my electorate of Gilmore? How will these reforms be paid for and are there any alternatives?
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (14:32): I thank the member for her question. As the member knows, and I thank her for her support in this area, this budget contains a range of measures—not just a single measure; a range of measures—upon which people with a disability, their families and carers will rely and which will improve services. The budget provides $33 million for a local care workforce package to help the NDIS providers deliver needed workers. The budget also provides for a new independent national body, the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, that will be established to oversee service standards and to enforce participants' rights. That will cost—and is funded—$209 million over four years and will deal with the very issues the Leader of the Opposition raised this morning. There are also very significant reforms to disability employment services.
Of course, as the member knows, the single biggest measure designed to make real the promise of an improved life for Australians with a disability is the 0.5 per cent increase in the Medicare levy. Every day the list of groups—important advocates—that support this measure grows. They support the measure as necessary and fair. Here are just some of the groups that support the measure and want members opposite to agree to this measure and to end this funding uncertainty: the New South Wales Council for Intellectual Disabilities; People With Disability Australia; the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations; National Disability Services; First Peoples Disability Network; Disability Employment Australia; and the Disability Advocacy Network Australia. And they are but a few.
The other thing that increases by the day is the number of identified times that the Leader of the Opposition has previously said that this was a fair and necessary measure—and you do not have to look very hard to find the strength of his support. In fact, if you were to go onto the Leader of the Opposition's website today you would find a media release. This is not from a screenshot in 2013; this is on the website of the Leader of the Opposition today. It says that a contribution of around 96c a day is 'modest' and that:
That’s about a dollar a day from the average Australian towards a better life for people with disability, their families and carers in our community.
It will also provide peace of mind to all of us that if we or a loved one acquire a disability, we will be supported.
It goes on to say further:
… we believe in bringing hundreds of thousands of people out of their second class status in Australia and trying to give them some power and some money, but we are also explaining how we will fund a sizeable proportion of it through this levy.
What is fascinating is not only the level of support but also the fact that the Leader of the Opposition does not say the increase in the levy would fund all of the NDIS; he says it will fund 'a sizeable proportion'. All we want now is to fund the rest in precisely the way that Labor has always said is fair.
Medicare
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (14:35): My question is to the Prime Minister. If the government's secret Medicare task force has been stopped, how come it is still going?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:35): The honourable member can make her allegation of a conspiracy or some secret procedure as much as she likes. The policy concept or proposal that she refers to is not government policy—
Ms Husar interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lindsay is warned.
Mr TURNBULL: It will not be government policy. The minister has made that clear. I have made it clear. The secretary of the department has made it clear. The honourable member obviously regrets that the Medicare scare she and her colleagues ran before the election has run out of steam. So she now wants to find another one. Let us be very clear: we support private health insurance for precisely the reasons the minister just said. The only party in this chamber determined to undermine it—I should not exclude the Greens, of course; the only major party—is the Labor Party. That is their agenda. It is not ours and it never will be ours.
Medicare
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Mr ZIMMERMAN (North Sydney) (14:37): My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister outline to the house how the government is guaranteeing Medicare and fully funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (14:37): I thank the member for North Sydney, who is not just a champion of Medicare, not just a champion of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, but is also a champion of advanced medical research. His electorate is one of those areas in Australia which is blessed with brilliant researchers, who we have been able to support with the largest growth in medical research funding ever as part of our overall package to support Medicare and health and hospitals more generally. In this very budget we have seen $1.4 billion added to the Medical Research Future Fund; $640 million alone in just the last year. That is part of our commitment to Medicare, along with the guarantee.
There is an alternative here. What we have seen from the opposition today is a sense of the growing desperation since the budget. They have been upset about the fact that for the first time in Australia a government has been able to simultaneously strike agreements with the AMA, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Medicines Australia, the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia and the Generic and Biosimilar Medicines Association. That is not a bad outcome. As part of that, we saw an extraordinarily incompetent and vile performance from the Leader of the Opposition on Friday. Addressing the AMA, Bill Shorten, according to Fairfax, accused the PM of 'buying doctors' silence'. What he said of the AMA to the AMA is that they took cash for no comment. What a politically vile and low sort of comment that is. This is in fact an independent body which have never failed to speak their mind and have never lacked courage in putting things forward to either side. What happened was they struck an agreement with us. They struck an agreement for guaranteeing Medicare. They struck an agreement for ending Labor's freeze. We did all of that and we invested $1 billion in Medicare indexation. We invested $2.4 billion in Medicare. By contrast, what do those opposite do? They go and accuse the doctors of Australia, the specialists of Australia, the GPs of Australia, of cash for no comment. He is experienced in some of the union ways and how they move with cash, but these doctors are independent and they are pretty offended by the vile comments the Leader of the Opposition makes.
Medicare
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (14:40): Again, my question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answer. How can this government claim the secret Medicare task force is no longer government policy when the deputy secretary of the health department has confirmed in Senate estimates today that the government will continue to engage with the exact same task force? Why is the Prime Minister determined to move Australia towards an American, user-pays healthcare system?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (14:41): Guess what? Labor still hate private health insurance and we still love private health insurance. We could not be clearer. It is not our policy. It will never be our policy. But it will always be their policy to rip the heart out of private health insurance. Our position has been absolutely clear in our discussions with everybody. This idea of ripping the private health insurance rebate apart is not something we would support, but it is something, again, that Labor support. I repeat, from only a few weeks ago, 'Fears ALP to axe $6bn health insurance rebate' and the very interesting line:
The private health insurance rebate could face further cuts under Labor after confidential discussions between insurance groups and the opposition …
So there is the shadow Treasurer, who was caught red-handed and outed for trawling around the private health insurance sector looking to slash their rebate or abolish it completely. We are not going to. You rule it out now.
Mining
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (14:42): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia: Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House how the Carmichael mine will generate jobs right across Australia, while protecting the environment? Is he aware of any threats to the jobs of thousands of hardworking Australians and coalminers and steelworkers?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (14:43): I thank the honourable member for his question.
Opposition members: Apologise!
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. Members on my right!
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon can leave under 94(a).
The member for McMahon then left the chamber.
Mr Brian Mitchell: Apologise for the disgraceful slur, you grub!
The SPEAKER: The member for Lyons will leave under 94(a).
A government member: He's got to withdraw.
The SPEAKER: That is quite correct. He will withdraw first. The member for Lyons will come back to his seat and withdraw.
Mr Brian Mitchell: I withdraw.
The member for Lyons then left the chamber.
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Prime Minister has the call.
Mr JOYCE: We know that we support the miners of Central Queensland. Not only that, but we know the member for Maribyrnong supported the miners of Central Queensland when he said:
I support the Adani coal mine so long as it stacks up. I hope it stacks up.
The CFMEU said:
The Adani mine is a project the CFMEU has always backed…
Mr Hill interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bruce will leave under 94(a).
The member for Bruce then left the chamber.
Mr JOYCE: The AWU Queensland secretary, Ben Swan, said:
Our full support and full weight is behind this development if it means regional jobs are created.
The AWU's South Australian secretary, Peter Lamps, said:
It is not unreasonable for the taxpayer, where taxpayers' dollars are used, to support an industry. I think that has been demonstrated … by previous federal governments.
The member for Hunter, back in 2012 when he was talking about government involvement, said:
I am eternally grateful to the government for providing the equity required to allow the Australian Rail Track Corporation to invest $1.2 billion in the upgrade of the coal chain going to Newcastle. It means getting more coal to the Port of Newcastle more quickly and more efficiently. That is fantastic news for the Hunter's economy.
We stand by the miners of Central Queensland. We stand by the steelworkers of Whyalla. We believe absolutely in their right—and we know the Labor Party is torn. They are torn by the green movement, who are now driving their policy, and they are torn by the fact that they no longer stand up for labourers. They will no longer stand up for working men and women. They have turned their backs on the working men and women of Australia.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr JOYCE: I will take the interjection. The inference drawn by the member for Maribyrnong in front of a full press gallery this morning, a very competent fourth estate—not one of them drew that inference. Not one of them drew the extent and the exaggeration that the member for Maribyrnong has now placed on the record. I think that is disgraceful, what the member for Maribyrnong did. It is absolutely disgraceful, because that extension, that exaggeration, brought into play something that was never there. If it was there, the member for Maribyrnong would turn around and at least show his face, but of course the member for Maribyrnong will not, because the member for Maribyrnong has changed since then. Once upon a time he supported miners; now he no longer does.
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
Ms Husar interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Kingston will cease interjecting and is warned. The member for Lindsay has already been warned, so she can leave under 94(a).
The member for Lindsay then left the chamber.
Deputy Prime Minister
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:47): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Prior to question time, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Deputy Prime Minister to apologise to the family of Larry Knight for his 'left them for dead' comment. The Deputy Prime Minister was asked to make this apology prior to rising to his feet on any other issue, and that would have been the end of the matter. Does the Deputy Prime Minister honestly consider that the performance he just gave in this House was more important than an apology to the Knight family? Does he have any understanding of the gravity of the office that he holds?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (14:47): I thank the honourable member for his question. He knows full well that the inference that was drawn by the member for Maribyrnong is completely and utterly out of order. That exaggeration and extension was merely for his political purposes.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will leave under 94(a).
The member for Isaacs then left the chamber.
Mr JOYCE: If that inference was clear, prevalent and relevant then a very competent fourth estate would have drawn that to my attention during the press conference, but it was not there. I have the greatest respect for Larry Knight, who at 44 years of age lost his life, and not once would I besmirch his character. But if you read the transcript yourself, member for Watson, you would see that I was talking to the member for Maribyrnong and about what he says. Read it now.
Mining
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (14:48): My question is to the Minister for Environment and Energy. Will the minister update the House on how the government is ensuring investment certainty for the Carmichael mine in Queensland while putting in place strict and proper environmental conditions? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (14:48): I thank the member for Mallee for his question and acknowledge his deep concern to create jobs across regional Australia. Indeed, the Carmichael mine has the potential to create 4,000 direct jobs and up to 8,000 indirect jobs. The government, through the powerful work of my predecessor, the member for Flinders, put in place 36 of the strictest environmental conditions under the EPBC Act, including implementing all of the advice of the independent expert scientific committee; putting aside 31,000 hectares of habitat for the black-throated finch, 5½ thousand hectares of habitat for the yakka skink and 135 hectares of habitat for the ornamental snake; and ensuring that there will be more money for conservation and that water management will be monitored closely.
We know where the members for Dawson and Capricornia are on the issue of the Carmichael mine. But where is the member for Herbert? The member for Herbert, rightly, is confused. The Leader of the Opposition says, 'I support the Adani mine.' But the member for Batman and the member for Wills, chasing green votes in the city, have come out against the mine. Senator Lisa Singh has said it is a 'huge mistake'. The member for Griffith said she does not support the mine. And Labor's climate change spokesman, the member for Port Adelaide, says that the Carmichael mine will cost jobs elsewhere in Queensland. Go figure that!
So who do you believe? Do you believe the Leader of the Opposition, who says he supports it? No. Do you support his backbench, who say they are against it? No. Do you support the opposition spokesman on climate change, who says it is going to cost jobs? Or do you support the member for Shortland? The member for Shortland is the shadow climate change spokesman. This is what he had to say about the Carmichael mine: 'I welcome the jobs it will provide for Queensland.' He said Adani was 'entirely consistent' with Labor's climate change policies. And this is the best, Mr Speaker. Listen closely.
People who are saying that we can solve climate change by shutting down Adani are kidding themselves.
So we have division in the state party of Queensland, we have division across the unions and now we have division in the federal opposition. (Time expired)
Medicare
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:52): My question is to the Prime Minister. After the election, the Prime Minister said that he had learnt his lesson about his cuts to Medicare. So why does this health department document reveal that his Medicare freeze stays until 2020 for 113 different types of Medicare services? Doesn't this only confirm that the Prime Minister has actually learnt nothing since the election about Medicare and that he and his Liberal government cannot be trusted with Medicare in Australia?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:52): I am glad the Leader of the Opposition has spoken about trust. Nobody, through his life, has betrayed the trust of Australians more consistently than this Leader of the Opposition. This is a man who, eyes filled with tears, talked about the importance of raising the Medicare levy by half a per cent to better fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme. He called on the coalition to support it, and we did. But now, of course, when the opportunity comes to fill that gap that he and his party left, he chooses tactics over principle, politics over policy and his own shabby political path of self-interest over the advice of the majority of his own shadow cabinet.
It does not just stop there. How long and how often have we listened to the lectures about needs-based funding? How often has David Gonski's name been taken in vain by this posturing fellow—a fellow dripping with empathy and concern about Australian students but then does 27 secret deals so appalling that David Gonski's collaborator Ken Boston described them as a 'corruption? Seventy-five times he is on the record supporting—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield is warned. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order.
Mr Burke: On direct relevance, Mr Speaker: in terms of being on the topic area, we have shifted not just from Medicare but to an entirely different portfolio in this answer.
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my right do not need to answer the Manager of Opposition Business when he has raised a point of order with me. The Manager of Opposition Business will know that I have spoken on this issue before with respect to trust in a preamble, but he does have a valid point. The question was about health and Medicare in particular, and I am sure the Prime Minister is about to direct himself to that subject matter in the question.
Mr TURNBULL: We are guaranteeing Medicare. We are establishing a Medicare guarantee fund. We have backed our guarantee with an additional investment of $2.4 billion for Medicare over the next four years, which includes lifting Labor's Medicare indexation freeze. This was a Labor freeze imposed by Labor, and the Minister for Health has negotiated with the AMA and the general practitioners to progressively lift that freeze, and that is happening. At the same time, the rate of GP bulk-billing has continued to rise in the first quarter of this year, hitting 85.6 per cent. We are delivering on our commitment to a strong Medicare and a strong PBS. We are listing new drugs on the PBS, drugs Labor did not list. We are listing drugs like the drug Entresto, for the treatment of chronic heart failure. We have listed over 1,400 new medicines on the PBS. How many were listed under Labor's last three years?. There were 331. They rationed those life-saving drugs; we are providing them for the health of Australians. (Time expired)
Investment
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (14:56): My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister update the House on the importance of a stable investment environment to support major infrastructure projects, create jobs and protect the environment? Is the minister aware of any threats to investment in this area? Could I also take the opportunity to wish the minister happy birthday on his special day.
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (14:57): I thank the member for Leichhardt for his birthday wishes—it is very good of him. It is good to be 30 again!
Can I acknowledge the member for Leichhardt's deep interest in making sure that Australia is well positioned when it comes to ongoing investment in major infrastructure and when it comes to investment certainty. One of the things that we on this side of the House know very well is how crucial investor certainty is to make sure that we see investment inflows into this country and investment by major businesses in this country that will ultimately drive economic growth and make sure that we create the jobs that Australians expect the Australian government to help create. That has been a crucial part of this government's plan as part of our National Economic Plan—to create jobs and to create economic growth—and that is by providing investor certainty.
In that sense I would note how fundamental it is that that certainty is given, especially where we see very large amounts, often multibillions of dollars, of capital invested, often with long lead-in times, long periods of time that elapse until the benefits start to flow from those major investments. That is part of the reason that as a government we have been so focused on, for example, major infrastructure like Western Sydney Airport as well as our vision for inland rail—visions and investment in infrastructure that the Australian Labor Party were never able to put in place.
The member for Leichhardt also asks about threats. I am sorry to say that there are threats to our investment environment. One of the principal threats comes from that mob opposite, the Australian Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party, not just at a federal level but at a state level as well, do not understand the need for certainty. The Australian Labor Party have no commercial sounding, no commercial basis, no commercial grounding to understand why certainty is so fundamental. That is why we see such a deeply divided Australian Labor Party. They are deeply divided in Queensland, where it was actually only on 17 May this year that the ABC reported:
The Queensland Government is offering Indian mining company Adani a "royalties holiday" worth hundreds of millions of dollars for its massive Carmichael coal mine in the state's north.
That was 11 days ago. On the weekend, the Queensland Premier put out a press release saying there will be no royalty holiday for the Adani Carmichael mine. We see a deeply divided Australian Labor Party, and we see it federally as well. Captain Chaos over there presides over a divided Labor Party. We see the same tensions between the Labor left and the Labor right, between Palaszczuk and Trad, between the member for Grayndler and the Leader of the Opposition, each hoping Adani becomes their ticket to the leadership and to the prime ministership. But it will not be under this government, we can guarantee you that much.
Health
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (15:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. A health department document reveals that his GP freeze will stay until 2020 for critical mental health care plans. Why is the Prime Minister making Australians who use mental health care plans, including kids with autism, pay more to get the treatment they need?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (15:01): Labor started the Medicare freeze and we are ending it. In the 2013 budget, Labor set out the Medicare freeze—$664 million was the cost of their freeze not over one year, not over two years, not over three years, but over four years and continuing right now. It is Labor's freeze that we are ending. In case there is any doubt about that, we struck agreement with not just one major medical group—or two, three or even four—but five and they have been tabled before the House. And what was their response to the carefully worked through plan? The Australian Medical Association: 'Farewell freeze—government wins back goodwill with positive health measures.' 'Lifting the Medicare rebate freeze is overdue, but we welcome it,' said the head of the AMA, Dr Gannon. 'The policy breakthroughs in the 2017 Health Budget are the direct result of the consultative approach of Health Minister, Greg Hunt, with the hands-on input and support of the Prime Minister.'
What did the college of GPs, the peak body for Australia GPs, say? The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners has welcomed the lifting of the Medicare rebate freeze: 'The lifting of the freeze was exactly what the RACGP's campaign was aiming for.' And it goes on. The Royal Australian College of Physicians, the RACP, 'welcomes the government's commitment to lifting—
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat for a second. The member for Macarthur on a point of order.
Dr Freelander: The AMA—
The SPEAKER: The member for Macarthur needs to state the point of order.
Dr Freelander: Relevance. The AMA does not speak for all doctors. I am a 40-year member of the AMA—
The SPEAKER: The member for Macarthur will resume his seat. He will not debate the matter through a point of order. The Minister for Health has the call.
Mr HUNT: Well, let me stand up for the reputation of the AMA—because this fellow over here is certainly not going to do that. What happened on Friday was that, frustrated by the agreements that we had struck, the Leader of the Opposition turned and fired his guns at the AMA's reputation—and he did it to himself as well. And you know why they did that? Because they are embarrassed. We have done what they never could: we have struck agreements with not just one, two, three or even four major medical groups but five. In the process, the Leader of the Opposition accused the doctors of 'cash for no comment'. That is not a paraphrase, those are the Leader of the Opposition's own words: 'cash for no comment'. That is not our way. We are lifting the freeze. The ALP imposed it and we are doing what they would not.
Defence
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (15:04): My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister outline to the House how the government's investment in the defence industry will generate thousands of jobs for hardworking Australians, create a stronger economy and ensure our national security? How will the great state of Queensland benefit from the largest military build-up in our peacetime history?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:04): I thank the member for Fisher for his question. The government is not just focusing on jobs and investment and protecting the environment in the Galilee Basin by supporting the Carmichael mine, unlike the divided rabble we see on the other side of the House. Queensland is also one of the big winners from the $200 billion build-up of our military capability over the next 10 years. Queensland has some of the most significant assets that will benefit from that military capability, in stark contrast with when Labor was in office and reduced spending to 1.56 per cent of GDP, the lowest level since 1938—
Dr Mike Kelly: It was record spending.
Mr PYNE: You keep believing that, Mike. It was the lowest since 1938. A couple of weeks ago—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Moreton is warned.
Mr PYNE: I visited HeliMods on the Sunshine Coast, in the electorate of the member for Fisher. It has just won the contract to build aircraft cabin wet decks for Navy helicopters. It is just one of the businesses on the Sunshine Coast that are benefiting because of the government's commitment to military capability.
I was also in the electorate of the member for Ryan, at the Gallipoli Barracks, where I welcomed the first delivery of the Rheinmetall trucks and trailers from Haulmark Trailers in Queensland, a $3½ billion project generating 110 jobs for Queenslanders. And of course Rockhampton and Townsville, in Central Queensland, are the big winners from a $2.25 billion investment in the massive expansion of training up there on the Central Coast and North Queensland. And the Amberley air base is receiving a $720 million redevelopment. These are decisions that were never made in six years by the previous government—$720 million, creating 500 jobs in the construction and development of the Amberley air base in Queensland.
And the member for Leichhardt: his city is the big winner from this massive build-up in military capability. In Leichhardt, Cairns is our major North Queensland base for the sustainment and maintenance of the Pacific patrol vessels as well as the Armidale-class patrol boats that they are doing right now. He won for his electorate a $24 million investment in marine infrastructure in Cairns that will transform the Cairns port into one of the most modern sustainment and maintenance ports in the Southern Hemisphere. There is also the Joint Strike Fighter. Ferra Engineering is just one of the companies that has won an $80 million contract for the Joint Strike Fighter program, employing 55 Queenslanders. None of it would have happened without our government being in power. It never happened under the Labor Party.
Health
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (15:08): My question is to the Prime Minister. A health department document reveals that his GP freeze stays until 2020 for chronic disease health assessments. Why is the Prime Minister making Australians who have chronic diseases, like diabetes, pay more to get the treatment they need?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:08): I thank the honourable member for her question. The government is committed to restoring indexation in accordance with the timetable that was set out in the budget and, as the minister has described, was agreed to with the AMA and the College of General Practitioners. That is our commitment, and we have undertaken that. We are doing so affordably, and we are delivering on our commitment to guarantee Medicare, to fully fund Medicare, to guarantee it—to actually put the money for Medicare and the PBS in a locked box every year. That is the strength of our commitment. Also, as the honourable member would know—and she would have many constituents in her electorate who are beneficiaries of this—there is the listing of new life-saving drugs on the PBS. She should ask herself how it is that during the term of this government we have listed 1,400 new medicines on the PBS. In the term of the last three years of the last Labor government, it was only 331.
That is the big difference. That means lives saved, lives improved, quality of life restored, families kept whole. That is our commitment to public health. We are delivering; we are honouring our commitment. I thank the honourable member for her question, but the premise is unfounded. We are committed. We are more than committed. We are guaranteeing Medicare and the PBS.
Welfare Reform
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (15:10): My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Will the minister update the House on the government's reforms to create a simpler, fairer welfare system that better supports people into work?
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (15:10): I thank the member for Bowman for his question and of course acknowledge his longstanding interest in this area and the efforts that he has put in in helping to research and devise appropriate policy responses. As the member is aware, too many problems have persisted for too long inside the Australian welfare system. Most people in the Australian welfare system inside Newstart never miss an appointment, and yet 100,000 people right now are persistently missing appointments and in so doing decreasing very substantially their chances of gaining employment and improving their lives. Of those 100,000 people who persistently miss appointments, 50,000—almost half—do not appear to have any significant barriers to employment. The reality is that because of dysfunction inside the compliance system there are about 50,000 or so people who regularly miss appointments who do not have significant barriers to employment in their lives and who are in effect gaming the welfare system.
It is not a very difficult system to game at the moment, because of its intense complexity. There are 17 different types of noncompliance events inside the compliance framework. They trigger six different types of failures. In his 2014 report, McClure noted that there were 17 different working age payments with a multitude of rates, eligibility criteria and rules. What all this means is that people sit inside the system in a passive way and they get forgotten, and they do not get the help that they need. So we have a situation in Australia where an older jobseeker is 13 times more likely to find work if they are actively engaged, and encouraged to be engaged, in job search, and yet in our present system, extraordinarily, someone aged over 55 is not actually required to search for work. The number of jobseekers getting a fixed period exemption because of drug and alcohol use has nearly doubled over the last five years, to 5,500 people in September 2016. It is further the case that the number of times drug and alcohol issues were used as an excuse for not turning up to an appointment, like turning up to a job interview, increased in one year by 131 per cent to 4,325 instances.
We are proposing, with the Minister for Human Services and with the Minister for Employment, an overarching and sweeping reform to the welfare system. We will simplify the system, turning seven payments into one. We will redraft mutual obligation requirements to make them consistent and coherent, and that will provide more encouragement and greater support for people searching for work. Finally, we will introduce a completely new compliance framework, after years of dysfunction, that ensures that the problems we have seen in the past do not persist. I think that people can trust us that this is all for the good of people inside the welfare system whose lives at the moment are not being improved because the system is failing. (Time expired)
Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:13): Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
BILLS
Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
'the House declines to give the bill a second reading because the bill:
(1) would result in a $22.3 billion cut to Australian schools, compared with the existing arrangements;
(2) would see an average cut to each school of around $2.4 million;
(3) removes extra funding agreed with states and territories for 2018 and 2019, which would have brought all under resourced schools to their fair funding level;
(4) would particularly hurt public schools, which receive less than 50 per cent of funding under the Government’s $22.3 billion cut to schools, compared to 80 per cent of extra funding under Labor's school funding plan; and
(5) results in fewer teachers, less one-on-one attention for our students and less help with the basics.'
The SPEAKER (15:14): I call the member for Parramatta in continuation.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (15:14): I was talking about the Schooling Resource Standard and the move between the state and the Commonwealth governments to move towards that over time. If the government were genuinely committed to that Schooling Resource Standard, we would still see schools moving towards it, but in my electorate the result is absolutely the opposite.
In the years 2018-19 alone—that is just two years—Arthur Phillip High School will receive $2 million less than it would have; Granville Boys High School, just over $1 million less; Granville Public School, $770,000 less; Hilltop Road Public School, $900,000 less; Parramatta Public School, $1.1 million less; Westmead Public School, $1.5 million less; and Carlingford West Public School, $998 million less. That is over just those two years alone. In fact, the result of the government's cuts will mean that, by 2027, 85 per cent of public schools still will not reach the Schooling Resource Standard—85 per cent, in 2027. Eighty per cent of the children in school now will have graduated by then, and we still will not have met the Schooling Resource Standard which was absolutely in place.
I have used figures from the public education system there, but the Catholic system is also going to be hit quite hard. The Reverend Anthony Fisher, who is the Archbishop of Sydney, said in TheAustralian Financial Review on 8 May:
What's already apparent is that the government's new "capacity to pay formula" will force fee rises of over $1000 for a very significant number—at least 78—of the Catholic primary schools in Sydney alone. For some areas of Sydney fees could more than double.
Catholic schools also say that they are set to have lower funding allocations in 2018 than they have in 2017. I know that my local Catholic Education Office was extremely concerned that there had not been consultation by the government on this. As I said earlier in my presentation, the original Gonski agreement took years—years of consultation. It was owned by the communities. It was owned by the schools. It was genuinely sector-blind and genuinely needs-based.
Where the government has really stepped back into the past is on this sector-blind issue. They are claiming that their scheme is sector-blind, yet they have made this judgement that they would fund 20 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard for state schools and 80 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard for private schools. There is no particular reason for that 20:80 split. It seems to have just been pulled out of the air. But they are going to fund 20 per cent of the state schools and 80 per cent of private schools, regardless of what other funding comes from the states. It is as if the transparency here and the entire focus is actually only about what the Commonwealth government contributes to education. It is almost policy based on the size of the input not the size of the outcome.
If all they care about is being able to tick off that they put 20 per cent into every state school, then I guess they have succeeded. I guess that is it. If policy is actually about their input, then this government has done it. But if they actually care about the results that schoolchildren get, if they actually care about the overall level of funding that our schools get and each child gets, if they actually care about building an education system where parents and their children can move from one state to another—where they can graduate in one state and move easily into a university sector in a different state—and if they actually care about a national standard for schools, then they have to be concerned about the outcome of their policy, not just the inputs.
This is incredibly poor policy. After so many years of work, and after a funding model which was owned by the education system and owned by parents, which so many people fought for and which was on its way to delivering—after all of that, and after this government, just prior to the 2014 election, committed to funding it and supporting it, to find now that our schools and our children are going to go so far backwards, and to find that even by 2027 we will not have reached the basic standard, is more than disappointing; it is actually shocking. And this government really should rethink its objectives here. The outcome matters. The outcome matters, and you are just not achieving it.
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (15:19): I have been in this place seven years and I have heard all sorts of weird and wonderful things, but I am hard-pressed to think of a bill that has attracted so much sanctimonious claptrap from both the government and the opposition, frankly, as what I have heard during this debate. Mercifully, the debate on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 has been punctuated with some quite powerful and accurate speeches. I am pleased the member for Melbourne is here. I think his speech was spot-on, and I am hopeful that my colleague the member for Mayo is going to follow soon as well.
What I have just said is harsh. There are a lot of good people in this place and both sides have a lot of good ideas. When I say that I have never heard so much sanctimonious claptrap it is because both the government and the opposition are either unaware—I cannot believe they are unaware; perhaps they are just ignorant—or sidestepping the fact that when David Gonski first came out with his recommendations he came out with a figure of our education system needing an extra $5 billion a year—each and every year. In fact, $5 billion was a 2009 figure. If we were to index that for inflation, we should now be talking about the need, the pressing need, the legitimate need, for our schools in this country to be getting an extra $6.5 billion each and every year. But what have we got? We have got the Gonski-lite that was introduced by the Labor Party under Prime Minister Julia Gillard—$15.9 billion over six years, which is $2.65 billion a year—and now we have the LNP proposition of $18.66 billion over 10 years or $1.86 billion a year. It is self-evident to everyone in this place that both the LNP government and the Labor opposition are nowhere near delivering Gonski. It is disingenuous for the government and the opposition to come in here and be so sanctimonious and have this cat fight about who is delivering the real Gonski. Frankly, no-one is delivering the real Gonski—no-one at all, and this at a time when in this rich and fortunate country we can afford to deliver the real Gonski. We can afford an extra $6.5 billion a year for our schools and for our kids. It is all about priorities.
Let's put $6.5 billion in perspective. When I look at the budget that was released in recent weeks, I see that expenditure in this forthcoming financial year, fiscal 2017-18, is estimated to be $459 billion. So, in a country and at a time when we can find $459 billion to spend, we cannot find $6.5 billion to spend on our schools. What is wrong with the priorities in this place? We have a federal budget that is approaching half a trillion dollars a year and we cannot find $6.5 billion. We can find enough money to double our submarine fleet, even though we cannot find the crew for the existing six. We cannot find the money that David Gonski determined we need to fix our schools now and, in particular, to provide the standard of education that all of our children need, including those with special needs. At the end of the day, a lot of kids will get by well enough but there are kids with special needs, those with learning difficulties, and those gifted children—all of those children in our community—who need a bit of extra money. The money is there in the budget this year, yet this parliament, this government and this opposition do not think it is a high enough priority. Surely, we know in 2017 of the importance of education. Of course, it is a building block for this country now and into the future. It is an essential building block for us to succeed in the knowledge future economy. Apart from all of the advantages that education brings our children, it allows them to prosper, to get better jobs, to earn more money, to be happier and to be healthier. We spend so much money on so many things, but we cannot find $6.5 billion a year, starting this coming financial year, to achieve all of that. Instead, what we have in here is what I have described as sanctimonious claptrap and pointscoring. Unfortunately, education and this so-called Gonski has become a political plaything—an opportunity for one side to score points against the other, and an opportunity for that side to then score points against them.
Mr Watts: Mate, that's nonsense.
Mr WILKIE: Do not start, member of the opposition. The fact is, you have not delivered Gonski. They are not going to deliver Gonski. Let us talk about the Labor Party's performance on this. What we saw was all of these deals—last minute, dodgy deals to try and get all the states, or at least as many states and territories as possible, to sign up to Gonski before that election. There were deals like saying to South Australia, 'We will waive your public housing debt if you sign up to Gonski,' as though the public housing debt has anything to do with a policy that should be based on its merits and a signature on a contract that should be based on its merits. And the merit would have been that you would fully fund Gonski at $6.5 billion a year.
And what is all this nonsense with first Labor and now the LNP saying, 'We're delivering Gonski, but, by the way, all the money is beyond the forward estimates'—out in the never-never, a pipe dream, unfunded. That was always the problem with the Labor Party's approach to Gonski—all the money was in years 5 and 6. There was no explanation of how it was going to be paid and there was no certainty it was going to be delivered. Of course there was going to be no certainty, because it was so far out in the never-never after so many elections it literally was just a pipe dream. And the government is no better now with Gonski mark 2. All the money is way out beyond the forward estimates in years 9 and 10—so far into the future it is just a fantasy. If the government and the opposition are fair dinkum about our kids and properly funding our schools and properly delivery on David Gonski's very, very commendable recommendations, then where is the money in this fiscal 2017 budget? Instead, it is way out in the never-never. Not only is the money inadequate; it is so far into the distance that it is just a promise. In other words, neither this government nor the previous government have delivered it or will deliver it.
And then there is the fiddling that goes on with the LNP and Labor parties at a state and territory level. I am seeing it in Tasmania, where all this federal money was coming in and it looked pretty good and the state government has been saying, 'Yes, we are behind the Gonski money; we are going to make this happen,' and at the same time they are reducing the state contribution to education in my state. For example, for the fiscal year 2012-13, the state government was spending $821 million on our state schools. The following year it was $819 million on state schools, a reduction of $2 million. The following year, 2014-15, was $812 million a year, a reduction of a further $7 million, or a total of $9 million reduced over two years. So the net spend has been going down, because some—not all, I should add—state and territory governments have been using Gonski as a smokescreen to cut their education funding. What is the good of Canberra putting in extra money when the state and territory governments are taking it away? Do we not care about our children? Do we not care about our kids and our schools? Do we not understand the importance of education in this country? We are supposed to be a smart country; we are supposed to be preparing for the future economy. How can we do that when we are underfunding our schools at a time when we can afford to fund them properly?
I have been talking about Tasmania. Can I add another Tasmanian perspective on this: what the government's proposal will do to Tasmania in the next two years. The Turnbull government, if it gets its way with its version of so-called Gonski, will be reducing funding to education in Tasmania during the next two years—calendar years 2018 and 2019—by $85 million, of which $65 million would have gone to our public schools. So the government cannot come in here and crow about how good all this is, because they are crowing about something in 10 years time. We and our children in my state are worried about education next year, in 2018, and education the year after, in 2019. To use those figures again, in calendar years 2018 and 2019, Canberra will pay Tasmania under the proposed model by the current government $85 million less, and $65 million of that will be ripped out of our public schools. Those who come from big states might not think $85 million less on education and $65 million less for public schools is a big deal. It is a very big deal in my home state.
I see it every day when I go to my young daughters' public school to pick them up from school in the afternoon. My children go to a public primary school and I am proud of it. It is a great little school, but it can only be held together for so much longer with these sorts of funding cuts. They have already lost staff and programs in recent years because of the net decline in funding for that school on account of the decisions of the Tasmanian Liberal state government, hiding behind the Gonski money.
Mr Deputy Speaker, excuse me if I sound animated and passionate about this, but that is exactly how I feel. I am sick and tired of the Liberal-National coalition and the Labor Party using education policy and so-called Gonski as a political plaything to score points against each other. That is all it is; it is an opportunity to improve popularity or to improve chances of being elected at the next election. No wonder the community is sick and tired of politics and politicians. The government wonders why they have had 13 Newspolls behind and they are still stuck on 47 per cent. The Labor Party wonders why its leader is so unpopular. The only reason Labor is travelling on 53 per cent at the moment is they are not the government. No wonder the community has had a gutful of politics and politicians when they see something as important as education policy and education funding having become a plaything.
When the community learn about Gonski and think, 'What's all that mean?' they do a bit of research and see that Gonski recommended $5 billion a year. When indexed, it is actually $6.5 billion a year. What are we delivering? We have a Labor Party defending $2.65 billion a year and we have a government arguing for $1.86 billion a year. This is all when we have a federal budget bearing down on half a trillion dollars a year. What are our priorities in this place? This is an outrage. We are letting the community down. The community want the politics taken out of this. The community want governments and the parliament to support the spending of our wealth and our good fortune on the things that matter—things like our schools. The community want us spending it on our schools in a way that makes sure our public schools are every bit as good as our independent and Catholic schools.
The fact is that we are a very rich and very fortunate country. All of our schools can be the best schools in the world. We can have the best education system in the world. There is no barrier to that except our thinking and the way this parliament plays politics with education policy and education funding. Instead we seem to think—I do not, but some people in this place seem to; maybe their kids go to independent or Catholic schools—that public education is a safety net, just like they think our public hospitals should be a safety net for the poor people. That is garbage. We can afford to have the world's very best schools in both our public and our private sectors. So let's get rid of this public versus private debate, and let's realise that with the wealth, good fortune and smarts we have in this country they can all be the world's best and none of them will be a safety net for anyone. People can choose which is the best school and best match for their boy or girl, knowing that whatever school they choose will be well funded and one of the best schools in the world.
I am so disappointed and so cross with the Liberal-National coalition government for their proposal, and I am so cross with the Labor Party for their half-hearted Gonski. There is an opportunity in this place to reset our priorities and to fund our schools properly. I do not like Labor's Gonski and I do not like the Liberals' Gonski, because neither of them are Gonski. Both are hiding behind David Gonski because they want to score political advantage out of him, his good name and his good recommendations. As far as Tasmania goes, $85 million less over the next two years is unforgivable. This place is letting our kids down. I am appalled, and I think I speak for the members of my community when I say they are appalled.
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (15:34): How to more equitably address school funding has been debated in this place for a number of years now, and I think it is fair to say that the debate has been full of half-truths. There has been so much spin on this matter that it is enough to make the most seasoned follower of politics giddy, and I think it is a great shame. This debate should be about what is best public policy and not about political point-scoring, which is what it has been to this point. What we have before the parliament is a clear policy direction from the government; yet Labor appears to outright oppose this legislation.
Now for some facts on education reform. The model proposed by the government is indeed more closely aligned to the Gonski framework. This position has been endorsed by the Grattan Institute and even left-leaning publications such as The Guardian Australia. Should this legislation pass, over 9,000 schools will receive more federal funding next year than this year—fact. When Labor acted on the recommendations of the Gonski review in 2012, Prime Minister Julia Gillard famously said that no school would lose a dollar. If that reform plan was continued it would take another 150 years for the poorest resourced schools to catch up to the schools that were over-allocated funding.
The Nick Xenophon Team has always supported needs-based funding, and we also believe transparency in funding is an essential cornerstone in any such reform. I believe that this bill, the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017, is a step in the right direction. If we are truly going to allocated funding to school based on need, then surely it is impossible to say that no school will lose a dollar when we know that many schools are already receiving 100 per cent of their Schooling Resource Standard. Perhaps that is why we find ourselves in this bitter argument today.
We must all be clear about one thing: the school funding model that we have today in our schools, whether public, independent or Catholic, is not the Gonski model. It incorporates some elements of the recommendations passed down by the review, but it also produces some huge inequities. The different deals with different states have led to students being discriminated against based on the state in which they live. A student in a government school in South Australia currently receives $600 less per year in federal funding than a similar student in a similar school in New South Wales. That is not needs-based funding; that is funding based on a deal that was struck outside of this House, lacking transparency and oversight. In fact, we have 27 different funding models for education in Australia. As the representative of my electorate of Mayo and my state of South Australia, I do not accept that the need of a student in South Australia is $600 less than the need of student in New South Wales. The current model is inequitable, it is unfair and it needs to be rectified.
To that end, I believe this legislation goes a long way. It provides clear targets for the government and non-government sector and, perhaps most importantly, transparency in the funding allocation to individual schools. I know the arguments of Labor. They say that this legislation cuts $22 billion from what they promised back in 2012; yet the bulk of the money that they were committing was beyond the forward estimates and not factored into any budget calculations. When talking about this legislation in the media, Labor are using their own set of figures for public schools to say that they will receive a cut and then using the government's set of figures of increased funding and cherrypicking independent schools and stating that they will receive more over the next decade. In fact, all schools will receive more, unless they are receiving above their SRS, and they will receive more over the next decade.
So we have an argument by Labor that is deliberately confusing to the community and it is comparing apples with imaginary pears. If Labor were willing to put so much money into their Gonski model, why did they push so much money out beyond the forward estimates? Why did they do that? As the member for Melbourne said, Labor could have used the 2010 parliament to legislate the original Gonski plan. Indeed, they could have included funding in the forward estimates and not put most of the moneys in years five and six 6, which meant states—such as my own state of South Australia—missed out on much-needed funding in the first four years. Of course, we do remember that the then Gillard government was under enormous media pressure to make the bottom line of the budget look better going into the election. I would assume that that was largely the reason for pushing out so much beyond the forward estimates. But it is not an excuse. Let's not cherrypick here and let's not make this about political pointscoring. Let's provide the Australian community with the facts they need on school-based funding and on how to get the model right so that every child is supported and so that the support is sector blind.
In his book I Gave a Gonski, David Gonski stated, 'I have one regret. It is the decision that we made to include in the report calculations of what I recommended a new per student funding formula was likely to cost government.' David Gonski went on to say, 'In retrospect, I believe the decision to mention the numbers clouded the entire process of our review.' But if Labor believes that the model cannot work without pouring in a further $22 billion—totalling $40 billion—then be honest with the Australian community, make this an election promise in the next federal election and show how you will fund this within the forward estimates.
This leads me to talk about what the Nick Xenophon Team see as weaknesses in the current package. While much of the actual model has merit, like the previous Labor government, the package is relying on the Australian community to accept and believe that the money will be committed beyond the forward estimates and, indeed, over a decade. I say that a decade is far too long for all schools to receive parity in their SRS funding. If you are truly committed, you would increase the funding amount over a shorter period to give schools and state governments surety. I believe when it comes to something as important as school funding, getting the model right is the most important issue. It is how we use the money that is crucial, not necessarily the amount of money being distributed.
A further weakness in the model, and perhaps the greatest weakness in the model, is there is no compulsion for the various state governments to increase their share of funding. While there is transparency in this model—so that a school or indeed a parent can see exactly how much is allocated to their school and then the actual amount that they receive—if the state governments are not compelled to contribute, it makes a mockery of this reform. That is as the member for Denison stated, as his Tasmanian state government has been reducing funding as they have received Gonski funding.
At the moment, the states are required to maintain their existing funding under this legislation, but that is not good enough. We will likely see that the reform will not be fully implemented if states do not increase their share too. So the Nick Xenophon Team asks the government to address this issue of state compulsion. States should be required to top up funding at at least 95 per cent of SRS. Of course, if they want to go above this amount, then that is admirable; but we cannot have states continue on their current funding amounts and also have true needs-based reform.
I want to address some of the concerns raised by the Catholic education sector. I read with great interest the comments by Peter Goss of the Grattan Institute, which accused the Catholic sector of cherrypicking its statistics. This has been widely reported in a number of media outlets, including The Sydney Morning Herald. It is so disturbing that I feel it is proper to repeat it here. The data reveals that:
St Mary of the Cross MacKillop Catholic Parish Primary School, a low-SES school in Melbourne's Epping North, received $1.86 million in 2015—
That is from the Catholic education authorities. This was:
$1.49 million less than its federal government allocation.
So $1.49 million was withheld from this school by the Catholic system. Yet:
Meanwhile, St Columba's School … received 15 per cent more funding than its federal government allocation.
And that is a school in a high-SES area.
Under the new system, one of the most admirable parts of the proposed reform is its transparency component so that each school will see what is allocated to them and then what they actually receive. I think I speak for many of my colleagues and many of my constituents when I say that there needs to be more accountability with how the specific sector is distributing its funding—the taxpayers' money—for the education of students. Should this legislation proceed, based on the amount allocated from the federal government on a per student basis, 31 of the top 50 schools in South Australia in 2018—that is, those receiving the most per student—will actually be Catholic schools. So it is hard to understand, with figures like this, why the Catholic sector is unhappy about the school funding reform.
Unlike the Catholic school sector, the independent sector has largely come out in support of the package. I read earlier this week that Independent Schools Victoria has conditionally welcomed the government's proposal, calling it a 'pragmatic compromise'. I have also met with representatives from public school parents' peak bodies, who have echoed the cautious approach for this package. In my discussions with the Association of Independent Schools of South Australia, they also have cautious support for the package. I acknowledge their concern that South Australia has been funded below the national average for the past four years due to the current funding agreements that were signed between the previous Labor government and the South Australian Labor government.
Now let us look at the state school sector. For the last 40 years in Australia, school-funding public policy has largely dictated that the federal government provide funding to the Catholic and independent sectors, and the various state and territory governments largely fund their state school systems. This reform will see increased Commonwealth funding for state schools so that every state school in the nation receives a minimum of 20 per cent of their SRS funding from the federal government. This means that, for South Australia, state schools will receive an extra 5.8 per cent of funding over the next four years, then averaging out to 5.6 per cent over the following 10 years. Nationally, the increase for state schools will be 5.1 per cent—this is over and above their current funding.
It is a shame that the argument over school funding is so divisive. Ultimately, we are all working towards the same goal: better education outcomes for all children. If we are to believe this government's narrative that we must become an innovative and agile nation, then education funding must be the absolute priority for all of us to get right. So I reiterate that this must require the states to also contribute their fair share and there must also be a shorter reform period. A decade is too long to make this reform a reality.
I am pleased that David Gonski, the original architect of education reform, is again working with government to create Gonski 2.0—a review to ascertain the most effective way to invest the additional funding to maximise student results. We have a unique opportunity to get the school funding structure right, so every aspect of the legislation must be examined thoroughly. I will cautiously support the passage of this legislation in this House. However, as previously indicated in my speech, there are weaknesses in this legislation that must be carefully considered in the Senate and through the Senate inquiry so that the best possible framework for reform is created.
In closing, let us do what the Australian community want us to do—to work together and not play petty politics on reform. The Labor, Liberal and National parties have all performed badly in this regard over the years. Our children deserve this change to receive needs based education funding reform and reform that is in line with David Gonksi's vision.
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (15:47): It gives me pleasure to contribute to the debate on the Australian Education Amendment Bill and to support the amendment that has been moved by the shadow minister, which states:
the House declines to give the bill a second reading because the bill:
(1) would result in a $22.3 billion cut to Australian schools, compared with the existing arrangements;
(2) would see an average cut to each school of around $2.4 million;
(3) removes extra funding agreed with states and territories for 2018 and 2019, which would have brought all under resourced schools to their fair funding level;
(4) would particularly hurt public schools, which receive less than 50 per cent of funding under the Government’s $22.3 billion cut to schools, compared to 80 per cent of extra funding under Labor’s school funding plan; and
(5) results in fewer teachers, less one-on-one attention for our students and less help with the basics.
Nowhere is this more true than in the Northern Territory. I mentioned in another chamber the impact of these changes on the school populations of the Northern Territory. While the 2017-18 budget shows a small increase in funding for Northern Territory government schools, this is driven, as we would all expect, because of the nature of the young population growing rapidly, by increased enrolments in the NT and better identification of students with disability through the Nationally Consistent Collection of Data on School Students with Disability.
What the federal budget fails to do—and this is a significant failing of the government's proposal and leads you to the conclusion that the $22.3 billion is right on the money—is maintain in real terms the Commonwealth's investment in children who access NT government schools. As a direct result of the new funding model, Gonski-lite, which the federal government proposes to put in place, the Northern Territory will be $254 million worse off over the next decade than if the full Gonski model had been put in place as per the proposals, promises and commitments from the Labor Party when in government. Average per student funding for government school students across Australia will grow now by five per cent per year for the next decade. Over the next decade, average per student funding for Northern Territory government schools will grow by less than $1,000. It is worth comparing their growth with that of some of the more significant private schools around the country. Under the proposed formula, which is now being sought to be legislated by this government, schools in the Northern Territory will be disadvantaged as against their interstate colleagues. The NT is the only jurisdiction where the transition process will lead to less per student funding than in 2017.
We currently receive 23 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard. The current reforms aim to transition all states and territories to 20 per cent of the standard. So there is a direct implication and an indication of the cuts that will be suffered in the Northern Territory. Funding for Northern Territory students in government schools will grow by just 1.3 per cent annually for the same period nationally, whereas funding for government schools elsewhere will be increased by five per cent. Let me give you a couple of examples. Girraween Primary School in my electorate will receive an increase over the decade of $547 per student. Geelong Grammar—a needy school—will see its funds increased by $2,309 per student. I just ask you to look at the two school populations. In relation to the population of government schools across the Northern Territory, by and large, in my electorate, 42 per cent of the population are Aboriginal people and there are a significant number of remote schools. I have well in excess of 100 schools in my electorate. If you look at the numbers for these schools, Aboriginal kids are the most needy, the most disadvantaged in the country. This legislation is supposed to be a needs based funding formula, yet those schools will suffer as a direct consequence of this proposal from the federal government.
It makes a mockery of the needs based funding formula which the government says it is introducing, and it makes an absolute mockery of the Gonski model. To put it in dollar terms, per student for this year and 10 years from now, the figures are as follows: total funding for NT students in NT government schools is currently $6,445. This is across all schools, not just the one I have mentioned. For 2027, the funding per student per year in an NT government school will be $7,369. The reality is that even in the low inflation climate that Australia has enjoyed since the days of the Keating and subsequent governments, inflation is a factor every year. If you assume a low inflation rate of 1.3 per cent on average over the next 10 years—and that is a pretty heroic assumption—and do a simple calculation, you find that the $6,445 per student in 2017 adjusted for inflation in 2027 will grow to $7,333 per student, just to retain current spending power. So the difference is $36. In real terms, if you use those calculations, these students in the Northern Territory will, over the decade, attract an additional $36 per student.
The Prime Minister huffs and puffs when he comes in here. As I said, he behaves like a pork chop on most days, and he is still a pork chop, but be very clear: he comes in here, ranting and raving and saying, 'There is more money going to education every year'—well, there ought to be. The Australian population is growing and, in my electorate for example, we have a very rapidly growing population, with a significant growth at the lower end. There is a very high proportion of young people demanding access to education. Just ask yourself these questions. So in 2027, if you account for 1.3 per cent annual inflation, it will cost $7,333 for what you would buy with $6,445 today. That means the government's funding is a difference of $36. Even today, what can you buy for $1, let alone in 10 years time? Imagine $36 in today's terms—that is the additional money given to every student in the Northern Territory. What will that do? It will not address the massive disadvantage that currently exists.
The government admits and often says we have to look after the most disadvantaged in the country. They come in here and talk about closing the gap, which we all agree on, but this will not close the gap in education. This will not close the gap in education for students in the Northern Territory. It will not support the types of services that are required to make sure that every student in public schools in the Northern Territory is properly catered for. That is the thing here. This is not just about kids who live in Aboriginal communities. I have already mentioned Girraween Primary School. Bees Creek School is another primary school in my electorate. They will see their funding increase by $509. Compare that to The King's School in Sydney—they will get $2,322. How does that work? This is supposed to be needs based funding. On any criteria of need there can be no question that every public school in the Northern Territory has a higher need than Geelong Grammar School or The King's School—apparently not, though, according to the government. They have done nothing to change their attitude towards making sure that there are sufficient resources for the education of these vulnerable children.
I could go through a list of others, but it is very clear that there is a massive level of disadvantage in the Northern Territory which is not being accommodated by this legislation. That is why it is important for government members to realise that they should be supporting the proposals put by the Labor Party. Compared to Labor's 2013 funding commitment to fully implement needs based funding in the Northern Territory, the Northern Territory will be $254 million shy over the decade. This is a small constituency, relatively speaking, yet we effectively are going to see $254 million ripped out of the education system by this government through the adoption of this policy.
I have spoken about education in this place since almost the day I first came here almost 30 years ago. I can see how parents, students and teachers can be so disillusioned with the way they are being treated by the federal government from time to time. Here there could be no better evidence of the contrast between the approach of Labor to needs based funding and that of the government. That is why I say to the government, look after the Northern Territory and the Northern Territory's students. Your proposals simply will not work.
It takes a strong personality to admit defeat or to say you are wrong. It is about time the Prime Minister showed us what he is really made of, says, 'I recognise that we are wrong', and accepts the proposition that they need to go back to the drawing board. If they are really serious about Gonski they will go back to Gonski 1.0 and make sure that funding is provided as per that model. If they do that, the needs of students in places like the Northern Territory will be better addressed.
Nothing is perfect, but we know that over 10 years Northern Territory government schools will receive less than the national average growth in Commonwealth funding for government schools, which is 5.1 per cent. The Northern Territory will get 1.3 per cent. All sectors, government, Catholic and independent, will receive 3.6 per average in Commonwealth funding, compared with the national average for all schools from all sectors of 4.1 per cent. But it is 1.3 per cent for government schools in the Northern Territory. It is not good enough. The government should go back and redraw this legislation; go back to the drawing board over what it claims to be Gonski to make sure that all Australian kids, regardless of where they are, are given a reasonable chance to achieve.
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (16:02): I really appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution to this incredibly important debate on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. Before he leaves the chamber, I want to pay tribute to the member for Lingiari, who has been representing the Northern Territory for almost 30 years now. He is a fine public servant who has been fighting for the right to a fair education on behalf of some of the most disadvantaged children in the country. He is doing a fantastic job, and I want to thank him for his words today. I want to join with him and the other Labor members in this House in saying that we oppose the $22 billion of cuts to education that are contained in the legislation before us.
We all have very different stories of how we got involved in politics. Mine cuts right to the heart of the discussion we are having today, so I want to tell you a bit about it. I was one of those very precocious and outspoken teenagers who developed an interest in politics when I was very young—13 or 14. The first thing that I noticed, the first thing that gave me that absolute passion that has driven me all the way here today to this chamber, is the belief that people's opportunities in life should not be driven by what their parents do for a living or the postcode they live in. That is my core belief. It is the core belief that has driven all of my involvement in politics up until now. As the member for Hotham, I can say with absolute certainty that the single thing that drives the activities that I participate in in this chamber is to make sure that every child who grows up in my electorate, including the kids who are growing up in the most disadvantaged parts of my electorate in parts of Springvale South and Noble Park, should have just as good a chance at going to university and living a life of value in the way that they determine as the children who grow up in Point Piper in the Prime Minister's electorate of Wentworth. I raise this because it is very important for people to understand that when Labor people come up in this House and talk about education funding this is not an academic exercise; this drives right the guts of what motivated so many of us in politics. That is why, in the bill that is before the House, you have of a long list of Labor MP after Labor MP after Labor MP getting up in this House and standing up for the young people they represent in their electorates. We see, unfortunately, on the other side of the House that there is a relatively paltry list of people who are going to stand in this House and defend $22 billion of cuts to schools around this country.
It is not just the $22 billion in cuts that irks us on this side of the House; it is the fact that this has created a model which is fundamentally unfair between the different sectors. It is not a needs based funding model in the way that the Labor model was established. It is a model that is sector specific and it cuts funding to the students in this country who, very much, need it the most. Of course, the context of this conversation must come from Labor's record in government. Labor implemented the full Gonski recommendations, and that was an extraordinary increase in funding to schools right around the country. It was an increase in funding that was very much needed, not just because we have extraordinary equity issues in our schools. Most Australians would be shocked to learn that the gap between the highest income students and the lowest income students in this country is much greater than for the average of the OECD. We consider ourselves a lucky country, but that is not the case for many Australian children. We introduced a needs based funding model, but it was also a funding model that saw Australian schools get the resources that they deserved. It is those two things—those crucial elements of Labor policy—that are being ripped to shreds in the bill is before us now.
I think the Labor MPs who put that funding model in place had a little suspicion that there might be some debates about it coming down the line, and so we enshrined in legislation the basis of the Australian Education Act. What was put into Australian law is the objective:
All students in all schools are entitled to an excellent education, allowing each student to reach his or her full potential so that he or she can succeed, achieve his or her aspirations, and contribute fully to his or her community, now and in the future.
I do not think there have been many clearer statements of what we believe about education funding than this one, and this is what is on the table before us.
I mentioned that the changes in this bill represent $22 billion in cuts to education. That is the equivalent of cutting $2.4 million from every school in Australia over the next decade—the equivalent of firing 22,000 of the hardworking teachers who serve our community by educating our children. When the review of school funding reported, they recommended that what matters is the total resources that a school has for each and every child who walks through the school gate, not anything to do with the money that is coming from the Commonwealth and the money that is coming from the states. Lots of us in this House are parents of schoolchildren. We probably take a keen interest in whether the state or the Commonwealth fund our school, but for ordinary Australian parents what matters to them is the resources that are available to educate their children. That is why, when Labor executed on its school funding changes, it actually did that difficult work of working with the states and territories to ensure that by 2019 every underfunded school would reach a fair funding level. That was by 2022 for Victoria. Labor said to the states, 'We will work with you to ensure that each and every child gets the funding needed.' We offered the states two thirds of the additional funding, on the basis that one third of additional funding would come from the states. It is only through doing the difficult work that we can guarantee proper funding for each and every school. We have had Malcolm Turnbull, who, until very recently—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Order!
Ms O'NEIL: Sorry, the Prime Minister. We have had the Prime Minister come in and not show too much of an interest in these discussions up until now, but he thinks that he can solve the problem in one fell swoop. One of the things he has put to this House is that this arrangement with the states does not matter anymore; what is important is what is coming from the Commonwealth. This is very important, because what it represents is that the minister for education in the other place and the Prime Minister are walking away from a fundamental part of the Schooling Resource Standard—that is this principle that it is the total amount of funding that matters.
Of course, given what I said at the beginning of my introductory remarks today, I have taken a very keen interest in the education debates and a lot of the very excellent research that exists about what drives good outcomes for children in schools. The Prime Minister and other members of his cabinet are very fond of coming into this House and fond of going out to the Australian people and saying, 'Oh, well, Gonski wasn't such a problem, because it's not really the amount of money that matters in education.' It is true that a lot of the research that we can find about school funding and what drives great outcomes for children is about teacher quality. But the idea that school funding is in some way irrelevant to the question of teacher quality is one of the silliest things that you could possibly posit in education. I would say, having been part of public policy debates for quite a long time now, that it is only really from people who have never had to worry about money before that you hear this notion that money is not important. Anyone who is seriously engaging in the debate about quality school performance in this country admits that it is expensive to build a brilliant school system. This is an investment, and we reap the rewards of that investment for years to come. But that is not what the government are saying to us; they are saying that money is not the driver of performance. Again, I will just say that that is wrong.
Under what the Prime Minister is proposing, some 85 per cent of public schools will not have reached their fair funding level by 2027. That is eight years from now. Under Labor, by 2019 every underfunded school would reach their fair funding level and by 2022 for Victoria. Now we have a new proposal before us, proposed, supported and voted for by those on the other side of the House, which will leave 85 per cent of public schools without a fair funding level up until 2027.
Labor proposed providing 80 per cent of extra funding for public schools. Under the model that is being proposed, less than 50 per cent of extra funding goes to public schools. It was not a mistake—not some sort of error—that Labor fell into by focusing on public schools in the school reform proposals that we implemented and put forward. That is because we know that public schools in this country are educating seven out of 10 children with a disability and that they are educating seven out of 10 children from a language background other than English. Many of the constituents in my electorate come from such a background. We know that 80 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students are being educated in the public system and that eight out of 10 kids from low-income households are being educated in the public system. This is a core part of what makes our country an equitable one and yet we have before us a funding model which will rip $22 billion out of schools, with a particular focus on taking money away from the schools that need it most in that public system.
I want to talk about some of the impacts of this legislation on my electorate of Hotham, because the cuts to the schools around my electorate are going to be very significant. I mentioned before that the $22 billion cut means an average of $2.4 million from every school in the country. And we have pretty good data on what is going to happen to our schools in Victoria that has been provided by our state government. I will note that is not the case for some of the states where the government has been a little more quiet on opposing some of these changes.
I have spoken to parents and I have spoken to school principals, who are very concerned about some of these changes. Tucker Road Primary School, for example, is going to lose $300,000 over 10 years. Valkstone Primary School is going to lose $300,000; Coatesville Primary School—I host my school leadership awards there every year—is going to lose between $300,000 and $400,000; and Westall Secondary College—an extraordinary school that has educated generations of migrants who were living in the Westall hostel, just across the road—is going to lose $400,000. It is outrageous. Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish I could take you to this school and just show you that these kids have so much get up and go. They are so keen to succeed in life, but a lot of them come from rather difficult backgrounds and they do need that extra support. And here we are, standing in this House trying to argue against the Liberals, who want to take that away from them.
Oakleigh South Primary School—I was at their school fete a couple of weeks ago—will lose between $400,000 to $500,000 under the proposals. Cheltenham Secondary College will lose $600,000, and the list goes on and on. Bentleigh Secondary College, a fantastic school that has recently had a Victorian principal of the year, will lose $700,000. I will just pick on one more school: Keysborough Secondary College is an amazing school. They have just opened a new STEM facility down there. They are going to lose $1.6 million. This is a regional secondary school, educating some of the most disadvantaged students in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne, and under this proposal they will lose $1.6 million. It is absolutely outrageous.
I want to make special mention of special schools, because there are some very concerning things in the bill before us regarding those schools. The bill before us would change the disability loading for schools so that eligibility is assessed using a new national definition. We have no idea how this bill will support students with a disability. I cannot stand before you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and say with confidence what is being guaranteed and what is not being guaranteed for students with a disability. When we are talking about vulnerable students, Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not need to point out to you that students with disability face incredible barriers. We know it is a good investment to help them, especially in those early years, to get onto a good path with education. I have a number of special schools in my electorate. I will just mention Bayside Special Developmental School and Southern Autistic School. Again, I was just down at the school a couple of weeks ago. They will be $1 million worse off under the Liberals' plans. This is not a bill I could possibly in good conscience vote for. Funding that supports the most disadvantaged schools and most disadvantaged kids in my electorate is being ripped away from them. It is absolutely outrageous.
It is even more frustrating when we see where the government's priorities sit. What we have is a Prime Minister who comes into the chamber and cries poor when it comes to the National Disability Insurance Scheme and cries poor when it comes to school funding. He cries poor when it comes to so many crucial national issues, and yet when it comes to something like funding a big business tax cut that is going to cost $65 billion, somehow the Prime Minister finds that he can find money for this urgent national priority. I will just say that those do not reflect my priorities as a member of parliament and they do reflect the priorities of the good people who sit on this side of the House and the good people who will be standing up for their local schools and the children who live in their electorates by opposing the bill before us.
I will not get the time to talk about Catholic schools, but that is another area of concern for us. I am thinking of schools like Resurrection School, St Peter's, St Catherine's, St Marks in Dingley Village, St Anthony's in Noble Park and Sacred Heart in Oakleigh South, which I am going to visit in a few days. We are very concerned that the government's funding model penalises Catholic schools. Again, that is not good enough.
Labor wants better schools, better results, and better support for our great teachers. That is what we implemented in government and that is what is being ripped away with this legislation. That is why we will not be supporting it in the House. (Time expired)
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (16:17): I rise to speak on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. I support the amendments moved by the shadow minister. Make no mistake about it: this bill is one of the harshest we have seen by this government. That is why so many on this side have been standing up here and speaking about all of our concerns. Many of us came to this place with such a dedication to education and improving educational outcomes for all Australians. What this bill does is take away many positive educational outcomes for young Australians.
Instead of providing schools with the funding needed to support the resources required, this government is actually cutting $22.3 billion compared with existing arrangements. We in the Labor Party know that a strong investment in education is absolutely fundamental to the core Australian values of equity and a fair go. Without support for education, we know that every young Australian is denied the opportunity to actually reach their full potential.
When in government, Labor undertook a landmark review into school funding. We introduced the Schooling Resource Standard. This was the instigation of a sector-blind model, defining with clarity the funding that all schools in Australia need in order to deliver the standard of education required for each child. This model guaranteed that all children in Australia got the extra assistance they needed. Children with poorer outcomes were able to receive equity in opportunity. Indeed, this guarantee was enshrined in law under the Australian Education Act 2013. The law determined objectives that every student in every school is entitled to the same excellent level of education and the same opportunities as every other student to reach their full potential. It ensured support for education would allow them to contribute to their communities, not just now but into the future. Schools, parents, teachers and students know what a positive impact the early years of extra funding made to them. The evidence was in better literacy and numeracy results, it increased science and coding classes and there was a greater uptake of university offers.
Inclusive economic growth is absolutely reliant on the reforms that Labor introduced in 2013. This was emphasised in a recent report by the OECD. If we want a stronger economy and a better future for this country, we need the investment in all sectors of education that Labor is committed to providing—not just the very lucky few areas that the Prime Minister and the Liberal-National government want to assist. The Liberal and National parties do not recognise education as the great vehicle for empowerment that it is, and paying just lip-service to education is not the same as committing to it or investing in it, as we do on this side of the House. The current government will say they want to provide the best possible education, but what they will not tell you is that they do not want to guarantee that for everyone—just for the chosen few.
For the Liberal-National government, that great education is limited only to the chosen few; it is not related to equity or fairness at all. Indeed, they are walking away from important measures and targets that are part of the current act. They are walking away from measures that would ensure our schools and teachers are supported in their work to provide a high quality, equitable education. They are turning away from the national targets set by the Labor Party, one of which is that Australian schools be placed in the top five highest performing countries in literacy, numeracy and science by 2025. They are denying Australia the opportunity to be considered equitable and high-quality by international standards by 2025. Their short-sighted and retrograde measures will see the attainment rate for year 12 or certificates II and III drop, not increase, and their lack of foresight will see an increase in the attainment gap between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and other students in reading, writing and numeracy. Make no mistake, that is what this government is leading our children towards—these unfair standards.
The Prime Minister and the Liberal-National Party simply do not value education for Australian students. True to form, they are out of touch with what many Australian schools and teachers face in order to provide adequate resources and assistance to their students. Changes this government have introduced in parliament represent just over $22 billion in cuts to education—so over $22 billion of cuts from our children and their ability to be properly educated and properly trained for the future. Why would a government who say they support education want to jeopardise the future of children and affect their ability to go to university or to go to TAFE or to get training or to get meaningful employment or to make opportunities for themselves? That is quite an easy question to answer—it is so they can give big business that big tax cut. That is all they want to do; that is their main focus—looking after multimillionaires and big business. That is their priority, and that is their choice. We also talk about other educational avenues such as universities and TAFE. We have certainly seen some major cuts by this government in those areas as well, and denying educational opportunities at all levels reflects their priorities compared to ours.
Schools, teachers, parents and students can see that schools will be worse off as a result of this government's cuts. We have seen many different groups come out and rightly condemn the government—$22 billion taken away from our schools is the equivalent to cutting $2.4 million from every school in Australia over the next decade—and $2.4 million is a huge amount. Taking away $22 billion is like sacking 22,000 teachers, and those 22,000 teachers all potentially could be out there providing great quality education.
This is going to make a huge difference in my electorate. I do want to run through some of the schools in my electorate and indicate what these cuts will mean to them in the 2018-19 year. For Ballina Public School, it will mean losing over $622,000; Bangalow Public School, over $168,000; Banora Point High School, over $611,000; Bogangar Public School, over $230,000; Byron Bay High School, over $470,000; Byron Bay Public School, over $390,000; Centaur Public School, over $659,000; Cudgen Public School, over $176,000; and Kingscliff High School, over $890,000. Other schools include: Lennox Head Public School, which would lose over $210,000; Mullumbimby High School, over $440,000; Murwillumbah East Public School, over $379,000; Murwillumbah High School, over $595,000; Ocean Shores Public School, over $222,000; Pottsville Beach Public School, over $490,000; Terranora Public School, over $280,000; Tweed Heads South Public School, over $560,000; Tweed River High School, over $800,000; Uki Public School—a wonderful small public school—over $120,000; and Wollumbin High School, over $460,000. They are, of course, not all the schools in my electorate. But it is just a bit of a snapshot of those wonderful public schools providing great services to our children. These massive cuts will really impact their ability to provide those great standards that they are currently providing.
The review of school funding had reported that all governments work together and that they work towards a common goal of enabling every child to succeed in school, with all governments at state and commonwealth level ensuring that total resources are delivered to each school, not necessarily looking at who delivers it. That is why we in government worked with the states and territories to ensure that between 2019 and 2022 every underfunded school would reach their fair funding level. We in the Labor Party said to the states, 'We'll work with you to ensure that each and every child gets the funding they need.' We committed to offering two-thirds of extra funding required and had secured an agreement for states to increase their funding by a third. It was only through these agreements that we were able to guarantee what this government is unable to—that is, fair and necessary funding for each school.
In fact, all of Labor's hard work and improvements in educational outcomes have been undermined by this government. The Prime Minister has stated that total funding for each school is not important. Just like the previous Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, the Liberal-National parties just want to again go backwards when it comes to providing for our schools. Under their proposal, about 85 per cent of public schools will still not have reached a fair funding level by 2027. Those same schools will receive less than 50 per cent of the extra funding. In my electorate of Richmond alone, public schools will miss out on over $14 million of funding over the next two years—a huge amount. It would make a very big difference to all of those schools.
Labor understands the great work that public schools do in providing for around 70 per cent of children with a disability, 70 per cent of children whose language background is other than English, 80 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and 80 per cent of children from low-income families who rely on the public system. Those are the facts. Labor's model has full funding for all loadings related to disadvantage. This would mean that Catholic and independent schools educating children with extra needs would not miss out on necessary funding as they will under the government's plan. We believe what the government is proposing is absolutely and fundamentally unfair.
Despite the government promising it has fixed disability support for students, there are no details at all on this proposal. So where is that? Nothing has changed since the 2013 election. This is particularly unfair because, of course, it is so students that do require more support. In fact, what they are seeing from this government is nothing—there is no support at all. The government's model means that many Catholic schools will also be penalised, resulting in an increase in fees or a loss in teacher numbers, resources and, in many cases, both. This is matter of massive concern—certainly in my electorate, particularly in rural and regional areas. The impact on all of our schools, particularly our Catholic schools as well, will be absolutely detrimental under this government's changes.
Whilst we support the proposal of a gradual reduction in funding for the 24 most overfunded schools in the country, we are very concerned at the huge inequities in the rest of the model. The government has said time and again that reform for schools is what is most important, not money. Well, if that is their case, where is their plan for reform? There is no plan for reform, just massive funding cuts.
We had a very good agreement with the states and territories, and this government has, effectively, thrown it all away, wasting the last four years—four years which, under Labor, would have delivered a commitment to quality teaching and learning, more autonomy for school communities and principals, increased transparency and increased accountability. These are all very important measures. There have been four wasted years without any reform. Now, they are saying that a new national agreement will not even be taken to COAG until mid 2018. Indeed, if the government really cared about reform, were focused on it and truly cared about quality learning and outcomes for children within our schools, they would not be stripping money from them, they would not be cutting the more than $22 billion from our schools, they would not be preventing our children from getting the extra help and support that they do require to get the proper training and proper education outcomes.
Over 2018 and 2019 Labor would have invested around $3 billion more than the Liberals and Nationals have proposed to ensure that schools get their fair level of funding—a huge amount, around $3 billion, to assist our schools to truly improve and truly provide those outcomes. Our children deserve this, and it is vital for the future of our country to ensure that every single child has that fair chance. We have stated that we would restore that $22 billion of cuts and properly fund our schools, allowing every child in every classroom the same opportunities. Every single student in every single school is entitled to an excellent education, allowing each child to reach their full potential so that they can succeed, so that they can achieve their dreams and so that they can contribute fully to his or her community now and in the future.
The quality of a student's education should not be limited by where they live, the income of their family, the school they attend or, indeed, their personal circumstances. This is even more important in regional areas like mine. When we look at rural and regional areas, we see that there are often many barriers to accessing quality education. The government are making it even harder and, of course, they are doing it with the full support of the National Party, who have, as I have mentioned many times, completely abandoned the people of regional and rural Australia. When they vote on a bill like this and they are voting to support cutting funding from regional schools, it is truly devastating. People have long memories and they will not forget that the National Party have made it even harder for people in those areas. It is very difficult for younger people from the country to get to university and to access TAFE, particularly with this government's increases in fees and their cuts to TAFE. Now the government are cutting back on their school funding as well, which will really impact their opportunities.
Under Labor, we want to make sure that teachers have the skills and support that they require to improve their performance over time and to deliver teaching of a high quality to all their students. Schools and their teachers will have the resources, skills and autonomy to make decisions and to implement strategies at a local level. That is what is important. Only Labor's plan to adequately fund schools represents the first truly national standard in Australia, with every school having access to resources and funding according to need. This was the recommendation of the Gonski panel, and Labor can completely fulfil that.
As with the OECD latest report, principals, teachers, parents and students all understand that, no matter where they live or their family circumstances, they deserve funding for an education based on equity and fairness. As I said, that is particularly true for those in rural and regional areas. They deserve to have access to a quality education. They deserve to be able to achieve as much as their city counterparts. Indeed, the Labor Party is the only party that stands alongside regional areas on matters such as education.
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (16:33): I rise to speak on behalf of the school communities in my electorate of Curtin. The purpose of this bill, the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017, is to ensure that there is a fair, consistent and transparent school funding model with Commonwealth and state government contributions combining to support both the state government school sector and the non-government and independent school sector.
The Turnbull government is committed to fixing the existing outdated funding model that is manifestly unfair and complicated, with at least 27 separate funding agreements, to ensure that Australia has a fairer, more sustainable and needs-based funding model. It is essential that funding is tied to improvements in student outcomes, as part of an evidence based reform package. It is a travesty that, while more funding has been provided to education, overall student performance has not improved, judging by the international benchmarks.
I take this opportunity to note that, in my electorate of Curtin, there is also a need to address the issue of inadequate support for state government high schools and overcrowding. I am pleased that the previous state Liberal government had resolved this issue with plans to upgrade Carine, Churchlands and Shenton Park high schools and reopen City Beach High. The state Liberals undertook broad consultation across the community, and their plans received virtually unanimous support. A needs-based solution that involved proper consultation was finalised. The Liberal Party approach stands in stark contrast to the new state Labor government and its heavy-handed and ideologically driven approach to education policy, manifest in its approach to Perth Modern School.
Perth Modern is one of the top schools in my electorate and among the best schools in Western Australia. It is a selective academic school which is producing some of the best academic results in the state. Founded in 1911, it has nurtured some of the most academically gifted students in the state over generations—former Governor-General Sir Paul Hasluck, former Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke, former Labor minister Kim Beazley, former Attorney-General Daryl Williams, former state governor and distinguished Queen's Counsel Malcolm McCusker and many other eminent and talented alumni. A state government school with such a proud record of achievement should be celebrated, and other schools should be encouraged to emulate its approach. Indeed, under the federal government's new funding model Perth Modern School will receive an estimated $39 million in Commonwealth contributions over the next decade, an increase of over $12 million from 2018 to 2027, to enable it to continue its record of academic excellence.
Sadly, I must advise the House that the new state Labor government is proposing to trash the Perth Modern legacy by turning the current location in Subiaco into a local general intake school and relocating the selective entry school away from its historic buildings and open sporting fields to a multi-storey office tower in the inner central business district. Welcome to the dystopian world of Labor Premier Mark McGowan, a former education minister no less! Labor proposes to gut Perth Modern and establish an academic selective school, named Perth Academic College, to be located on the upper floors of a high-rise office block in Perth city. As a former federal education minister, I am acutely aware of the educational needs of children, including access to open air, green space, playing fields and sporting facilities. Perth Modern School has produced not only community leaders, doctors, scientists and actors but also Olympians in athletics, hockey, swimming and pistol shooting. How can a school with no access to sporting facilities and playing fields offer a quality education?
This bill is about ensuring fair access to a quality education. Labor talks about fairness and then seeks to undermine Perth Modern, one of the best schools in Western Australia, which has provided enormous opportunities to children from every socio-economic background across our state. Do not listen to what Labor says, watch what it does. Labor's proposal to relocate an entire high school to an inner-city office block has been developed without any proper consultation or assessment of its detrimental impact educationally, socially and economically, let alone the security aspects. To have children aged 12 to 17 years old schools in a high-rise city building with no access to outdoors or sporting facilities is sheer ideological madness. There has been immense and growing opposition from concerned citizens, from the Perth Modern community, and from present and past students and alumni. I have been inundated with complaints from concerned parents who want to ensure the proud history of Perth Modern is protected and its successful educational formula preserved for the benefit of future generations.
It was in 2007 that the then Labor state government took action to restore Perth Modern School to the status of a selective academic school, which it had been from 1911 to 1958. I applauded the decision at the time. Labor Premier Mark McGowan and his education minister, Sue Ellery, have further insulted the school by suggesting they will consult with the school community 'after the announcement'. As former Governor Malcolm McCusker noted, at most the school community might get a say in the colour of the walls! There is no logical or reasonable explanation for this assault on Perth Modern School other than Labor's ideological war on those who aspire to excellence. Premier McGowan is now in in a race to the bottom with his embrace of lowest common denominator thinking.
I stand with the proud Perth Modern Community against Labor's ill-conceived plans. I call on the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow education minister to put aside any sense of misplaced loyalty to a state Labor government and join with the coalition in putting the interests of bright, young Western Australian children first. In the interests of our nation, we need to be nurturing the next generation of young leaders and thinkers, and Perth Modern School has a proven track record of producing many of our finest. Our education reform package offers choice, fairness, quality and excellence. I commend the federal government's education reform package to the House.
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (16:39): The greatest and most important investment we can make in the social and economic fabric of our nation is to invest in education. By using the words 'invest in education', I mean investing in the next generation of Australians. They are the people who are currently students at primary schools and secondary schools, who are at an age when learning is so important to them. That is because at this point, when they start school, the development starts from year 1. They need those resources to be able to get an education and to be able to get the resources required to learn. That is not just to learn but to achieve and to go on and do great things that then change the shape of our nation.
That is why Labor undertook the most extensive review into school funding, under the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the former Labor government, to ensure that funding was based on students' needs. It was based not on postcodes or on what school they attended but on what they needed to achieve their full potential. We on this side know that those early years in primary school and on through to high school are so important to someone's development and so important in what the next steps in life are for you as an individual. We know that if you miss out on those early years—if there is perhaps an issue or problem with reading or math—and fall behind, it is very difficult to make up that ground throughout your school life. I am not saying it does not happen, but it is very difficult.
That is why we undertook to do this review to see where resources were needed and where certain schools perhaps may have been falling behind to ensure that those children in those schools have every opportunity given to them to ensure that they have got the education that they deserve. As I said, it is so important that students achieve their full potential. This is a responsibility that we must take seriously in this place. It is too important to play party politics with, because playing party politics with something so delicate as a child's education is detrimental to that child, to that school and to the community that is assisting in bringing up that particular child.
That is why in 2013 both parties agreed on this subject. The then opposition Liberal coalition agreed that if they came into power, which they did, then their policy would be no different to the proposals that the then Labor government had put up. They agreed that there would be no partisan politics in this and that we both understood how important this policy was for the future of the next generation of Australians. I think we also understood at that point—especially the then opposition, who is now in government—that it was too important for trickery or clever wording.
As I said, this was about our children's future. We are dealing with children's lives. Those extra few dollars that were committed by the Gonski policy back then would have made a real difference. It could have been the difference between perhaps falling behind and not falling behind. It could have been the difference between staying at school, going on and getting apprenticeship, going to university or TAFE and finding fulfilling employment or dropping out at the age of 15 or 16. This is how important this particular policy is. As I said, we are dealing with people's futures. That is why this government's new school funding policy is such an enormous disappointment. It is an enormous disappointment which adds on to the long list of disappointments which this government has inflicted on the Australian public. But this is one of the worst because we are looking, as I said, at children's lives and children's education and the future of this nation.
I said this the other day: during the last election we heard the Prime Minister talking about high IT, cutting-edge technology and how we need to achieve in these areas. But, on the other hand, unless you are funding at the foundation of all this, which is education, we will not achieve those cutting edge jobs and the high-tech industries that we need to compete on world markets. So it is one thing to talk about these things, but the reality is: education needs to be funded and it needs to be funded at a very early age, in schools. It is pointless talking about jobs and growth if we do not fund the knowledge that is required to create jobs and growth. So this, on a long list of disappointments, is one of the worst, I think.
We have also seen the government try to pretend otherwise—that this is not actually a cut. But the facts expose it for what it is, and that is: when you do the sums, when you add it up, and when you look at the budget papers and compare it to the 2013 policy of the then Julia Gillard government, there is a $22 billion cut to schools. There is no other way of putting it. And this was stated by the government itself, in a prebudget briefing paper on schools funding distributed to the press gallery and to journalists earlier this month. It was there in black and white. If you will allow me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will quote from an article on the ABC website on 26 May, where we read that in this briefing paper the Turnbull government themselves:
… conceded that "compared to Labor's arrangements, this represents a saving of … $22.3 billion over 10 years (2018 to 2027)."
Well, to me, it is pretty clear: you do not get a $22.3 billion saving without cutting it from somewhere, and it has been cut from this education policy that has been proposed by this government. That is very clear. As I said the other day as well, when I spoke about schools and education, you can dress it up and package it in any way you like; the reality is: there is a $22.3 billion cut.
What makes it even more disappointing is that, at the same time as we are cutting $22.3 billion from education—which will then go on to affect the next generation of Australians and their learning capacity and will affect schools and the resources they have to teach children—we are giving big business a $65 billion tax cut. If the government wants to cut $22.3 billion out of schools to fund the $65 billion tax cut to Australia's biggest businesses, that is fine—but be up-front with it and tell us that you require money to pay for the tax cut and therefore you are going to cut from education. Do not dress it up and put bow ties on it and make it look like it is not a cut, when it is clear, from the government's own budget papers, that it is.
It makes you wonder: what type of government cuts money away from education, which is one of the most important things that we as governments can do? One of the most important things you can do is to nourish those children and give them the resources they require. We know that education is one of the levers we have when we want to change a person's life. It is absolutely agreed by everyone that, if you want to change someone's life, you do it through education. But what we are doing here is taking away from those people who perhaps are not in a position to go to very wealthy schools but are in schools that have very few resources or who just do not have a background that gives them the support they need at home, like many other homes. This money would have assisted, in those areas, to give those kids a great start and to give them equal opportunity, regardless of where they live or what their postcode is.
And this is not just for public schools. The proposal on school education that the former Labor government had put up was on a needs basis. You would look at schools, you would look at the students, you would work out where the needs were, and then you would find the resource and fund that resource to help those students.
This has to be the epitome of disappointment in a government that does not understand the meaning of fairness. It does not understand the meaning of fairness when at this point we are cutting $22.3 billion and giving a $65 billion tax cut. Parents, teachers and schools deserve the truth about what this government is offering. I tell this government: it is no good to try to sell it as something that it is not or to pat yourselves on the back for making a massive cut, then giving a tiny bit back and saying, 'Look how good we are—we have given X dollars for education.' That is like being an arsonist, setting something on fire, and then expecting to be congratulated because you have dialled triple 0 and got the fire brigade there. It is no different.
These children deserve better. Our education system deserves better. Our teachers and our school communities deserve better. That is why Labor will restore the $22 billion that the Liberals have cut from schools. We will do this because we believe in education and that there is nothing better for our society, our communities and our economy than well educated, well trained students that create well paid, good jobs. I go back to the point where the Prime Minister, before this last election, was talking about those cutting-edge jobs. You cannot create them unless you educate people and give them the tools to be able to create those cutting-edge jobs of the future.
The government locks in the underresourcing of public schools over a 10-year period, and it would end the national agreement made during the previous Labor government, designed to ensure that all schools, public and private, are properly resourced based on their students' needs. Does the Prime Minister think that people out there cannot see through this? I have been getting calls in my electorate office from principals, teachers and parents who can see through this and are not happy. If this plan were so good, why are the state and territory leaders up in arms, including some of his own Liberal Party premiers around the nation? As I said, not even Liberal state governments agree with the coalition's proposal.
This government's plan will hurt students. For example, it will hurt students like in my electorate of Hindmarsh, at Cowandilla Primary, which will have over $372,000 cut out of its funding. Cowandilla Primary is not a rich school. It is my former primary school, which I attended. They do tremendous work. They have always had a focus on new arrival kids. They have programs to try and help them, to assist them with English so they can get straight into learning, into the education system. It is one of the great schools that do great work with so little funding.
Another one is Glenelg Primary School. They will have $676,000 cut out of their funding. At Glenelg Primary School the principal tells me about the great stuff that they have been doing with the Gonski funding—the education funding—that they have been getting, where they have been assisting students who have difficulty in reading to get them up to scratch so that they can be at a level that will assist them to go on to learn and to do things. These are just two schools that are doing great work. Another one is Seaton High School, which is in a public housing area. It is not a rich school. Parents there are doing it tough. They are having $882,000 cut out of their funding. Another one is Henley High School, which is specialising in Steds, for example. They are getting $1.325 million cut from their funding.
This is not fair. These are not schools in richer areas. They are just ordinary, middle-class schools that are doing their best to educate kids. The South Australian state government has reputedly said that it is committed to the full six years of the Gonski agreement. The state government, together with schools and parents in South Australia are all demanding that the federal government abandon this cut to school funding. According to what the South Australian government has been told, it seems only $70 million will be restored over those two years of 2018 and 2019, leaving around $265 million in cuts from the signed original plan. That is another example of how this government is playing games.
The Prime Minister keeps on saying that the funding wars must end, but we did end it. In 2013, we did end it. Both parties had a bipartisan agreement. We should go back to that bipartisan agreement— (Time expired)
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (16:55): This Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 is a vehicle to cut $22 billion of support to our nation's students and represents one of the most disgraceful examples of intergenerational theft that we could witness. This is today's generation wilfully denying future generations the access to funds—to the investment—in the next generation's preparation for a world of work that will be dramatically different to ours. As I said, it is disgraceful to see this bill being dressed up in the way that it is—claiming to do one thing and doing something vastly different. This government is claiming that they now recognise the value of needs based funding without properly funding to meet the need.
As is always the case with this Prime Minister, it is all show and no substance; claiming one thing but filled with cowardice and unable to actually admit at that dispatch box exactly what he and his government are doing. He is prepared to go out to the media and to say to them that what they are doing, effectively, is saving $22 billion. They say to the media that compared to Labor's arrangements this represents a saving of $6.3 billion over four years and $22.3 billion over 10 years. That is how it gets briefed out to the media. But when questioned in this place as to whether or not that is exactly the case, or asked to say to the Australian public, out of his own mouth, what this bill will do and how much money it will cut out, there is cowardice: a refusal to acknowledge exactly what they will do or what the Prime Minister will oversee. This is the Prime Minister who claims that he is all about innovation—the Prime Minister who claims that he is all about technology and the Prime Minister who thinks that these are exciting times and that the nation needs to become more agile—presiding over a regime that will see less, not more, invested in the next generation of young Australians.
That is why I find this bill so offensive, because on so many levels, as I said, it is about show rather than substance. Once the caravan rolls on there will be a whole bunch of people left without the proper support and facing a future where more skills—greater skills and higher levels of skills—will be demanded and we are not investing in them.
He wheels out, for example, David Gonski, the person who spearheaded the actual review into the way in which we fund education in this country. He wheeled him out at a press conference a few weeks ago to distract—to have the 'Oh, wow!' moment—to make the media, and therefore the public, think that this new model that is being put forward by the Prime Minister is as it is claimed to be: an embrace of needs based funding. Actually it is not; it is a classic case of the sequel not being anywhere near as good as the original. His claim that Gonski 2.0 represents an advancement, or that it properly fulfils and reflects what was originally intended, is wrong. Simply wrong! Again, it is showmanship and not the real deal.
And what will happen as a result of it? As I said, we will see less money. We have had, though, those opposite say in the weeks and months leading into this that Gonski is not all about money. I listened today to the contribution of my colleague the member for Hunter. There was something in his words that struck me when he stood at this dispatch box this morning. When those opposite say that Gonski should not be all about money, that it is not about throwing money at education, he said, 'Let's forget these people who say money doesn't matter. Have a look at some of the outcomes of some of our very wealthy private schools and some of the outcomes of our public schools and the difference between them, and ask yourself, "Why?" It is about money; money does matter.' And he is absolutely right.
Money makes a world of difference when it is employed in an effective way, in a way that changes outcomes and in a way that can differentiate between how education was previously carried out and how it can be much more intensive and much more focused on the needs of the students themselves. When I think about the impact of that money, I think about what Gonski's original thoughts were. The original report recognised that education had an ability to break down clusters of disadvantage. It looked at different parts of the country where an investment in education could actually break down disadvantage, where it could be used as a sledgehammer in cases where intergenerational unemployment had condemned families to a much poorer pathway and a less enriched life. It talked about clusters of disadvantage. That is what Gonski said he was about: breaking down those clusters.
A few years ago, my area had to endure SBS coming in and filming various families in neighbourhoods of need. They were effectively gawking at the type of disadvantage that exists in my part of Western Sydney. It was purely for entertainment. A lot of us objected to the way in which people were portrayed in the promotion for Struggle Street—that was the program's name. We objected to it, because we all knew that once the channel changed, once the program ended, once the focus shifted, no-one would be there to properly fund or make the decisions that would make a meaningful difference in the lives of those people who had been featured on the TV screen for that short period of time. It was exactly what I was worried about, and it was what I was critical of at the time. The entertainment has been had, but where is the investment to get people out of Struggle Street and ensure that they are not stuck there, that their kids are not stuck there and that their kid's kids are not stuck there? That is what this bill should be about; but, instead of getting people out of Struggle Street, it is putting them on a funding goat track. It is not properly meeting need.
The Schooling Resource Standard was all about identifying particular schools where there were higher concentrations of kids from low-income backgrounds, kids with disability, kids from non-English speaking backgrounds or kids from Indigenous backgrounds. These factors would be taken into account and people would make decisions to properly support and invest in those students in a much better way than what had previously occurred. Let's look at what this government will do through failing to fund education in those neighbourhoods of need and how the funding in this bill does not properly support need and how it will rob people in my part of Western Sydney. Let's look at the list of schools that will lose substantial funds over the years 2018 and 2019. Doonside Technology High School will lose $1.4 million; Evans High School, $1 million; Bidwill Public School, $1.1 million; Lethbridge Park Public School, $1.13 million; Hebersham Public School, $1.4 million; Plumpton High School, $1.4 million; and Shelley, Tregear and Whalan public schools will all see massive cuts of between $900,000 and $1 million each. What stood out to me in particular was Crawford Public School in Doonside. It will lose nearly $1 million. When I went to Crawford Public School's presentation day in December last year, I got to hear the principal of that school get up and say what Gonski meant for that school and how they were able to make investments in getting someone in to help students with maths, to improve the results of the students in those studies. They said it made a big difference. These funds make big difference. So when those opposite say money is not everything—well, you cannot do anything without money. You cannot invest in that way—in a specific, strategic, targeted way—to see a change in results, in this case in mathematics, with Crawford Public School in 2018-19 losing nearly $1 million. It is simply scandalous that we will have that, that those people would potentially go on without the right skills into a life of unemployment, or long periods of unemployment, becoming long-term unemployed because they do not have the skills that are required and demanded in the future economy.
And I have teachers writing to me saying: 'I'm writing to you as a concerned teacher from Doonside Technology High in relation to the proposed changes to the school funding model. Despite the rhetoric of the Turnbull government, this is not a commitment to genuine needs based funding.' They go on: 'Over the next two years, under this new model, Doonside Technology High will experience a substantial loss in funding of $1,360,465. Doonside Technology High is a school committed to the provision of quality education to a student cohort with complex learning needs. As a concerned teacher I ask that you reject outright the Turnbull government's cuts to education.' That is signed by Jamie Campbell, from Doonside High. They know what this will mean.
And then you look at the future, when you consider that 13 out of 19 Australian industry sectors are being affected by technological change and three out of five jobs are being completely upended by technological change. Some of the work that has been done to investigate the impact of automation suggests that 40 per cent of jobs in financial services and 50 per cent of jobs in manufacturing could be automated. Then there is fast food and accommodation. Fast food jobs are entry-level jobs for a lot of people, or jobs for creating bridges between jobs for people who are out of work or mature-age people. Between 60 and 90 per cent of those jobs will be gone because of automation. In Japan now there are hotels that are fully automated and you hardly see a person. In the US they are starting to have automated hotels as well. The accommodation sector will be changed profoundly by automation.
So, what do we need to do? We need to ensure that we are actually skilling people up. The government released a report last year called Tomorrow's digitally enabled workforce. It was released by the Minister for Employment. It is collecting dust and has not even been acted upon by the Department of Employment. The report says:
Increased use of automated systems is raising the complexity of tasks and requiring higher skill levels for entry-level positions.
That is for just the entry-level positions. And the report talks about the changing nature of employment, the fact that the job market is in transition. Over the past five years—since 2016—the occupational groups that contributed most to employment growth in Australia were health care, social assistance, and professional, scientific and technical services, offsetting falls in manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, fishing and mining. It is all changing, right before our eyes. What are the skills that are needed? This report indicates that they are skills in creativity, problem solving, advanced reasoning, complex judgement, social interaction and emotional intelligence. These are all skills that we need to invest more in. Lifelong education and training for all Australians is needed to prepare both young and old for new and different jobs and employment models.
So, this is what we know is going to hit. This is what we know is going to change Australia's workplaces. And it is this higher-intensity level of skill development—embedding that into future Australians—where we need to see more, not less, spent on education. And let me make this point: ever since becoming an MP back in 2010 I have become profoundly conscious that the decisions made in this place matter. Regardless of what people may or may not say about politics, the decisions that get made here do impact people. The decisions to do things—but, importantly, also the decisions not to do things—matter. In this case, with the $22 billion that might be forgone, we will not be able to go back and fix things. There will be young people going through school who will not have the level of support that they need, and we cannot go back and fix that, because once the funding is not there and the teaching is not provided, future generations will be affected.
That is why, on this side of the House, so many of us see as an article of faith the need to ensure the proper level of funding, because if we do not we are robbing future generations and—worse—we cannot go back and necessarily fix it as easily as we would like. We cannot support this bill in all conscience. We cannot and must not support it. We should be supporting the amendment that has been put forward by the shadow minister. (Time expired)
Mr HART (Bass) (17:10): I have listened with very great interest this afternoon to many of the contributions that have been made in this debate on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. Particularly, I would like to thank the member for Chifley for his contribution, because when he talked about disadvantage in his electorate and when the member for Lingiari talked about disadvantage in his electorate, that resonated with my experience, albeit limited experience, in this place.
The reason why I can say that with confidence is the fact that in a very lengthy election campaign and after doorknocking on thousands of dollars and having thousands of conversations with electors in my electorate, something came through very loud and clear. That was that there were three primary concerns in my electorate of Bass. These were jobs, health and education. The feedback that I got showed a sophistication of understanding by multiple people in the electorate. They understood how interconnected those issues were—particularly when you are talking about areas of disadvantage.
The member for Chifley talked about disadvantage and the importance of investment in education for the jobs of the future. This is particularly important to my electorate of Bass, because we are beset by disadvantage. The Tasmanian experience is, unfortunately, that we have a gross state product which is 27 per cent below the average gross state product for the other states. I find that shameful; that represents a significant underperformance.
People on the other side and people from other states can criticise Tasmania for its underperformance, but we have a responsibility in this place, acknowledging the importance of our federation, to make the appropriate investments to lift up people who are below the line, so to speak—particularly in areas of disadvantage. That is the Labor way.
I have listened with interest since budget night to those opposite, who now claim the mantle of fairness. They now claim a commitment to a needs based system driving Commonwealth funding in education. They talk about 'funding' in education—they do not talk about 'investment'. I have listened to some on the other side claiming that Labor is misrepresenting the investments made by the government in education. They claim that the budget delivers increased funding, just as in the 2016 election campaign they claimed increases in education funding, increases in health funding and a commitment to Medicare.
In my view, their appropriation of Gonski is a cynical attempt to convince the Australian voters that they—the Liberal Party—understand the concerns of our communities about education: in particular, the desire of all parents to see that their children benefit from a good education. I saw this time and time again on the streets of Bass. We know that people have a commitment to education. I campaigned in the electorate during the 2016 election, particularly in areas of significant disadvantage, on the transformative power of education. This message resonated with all people—those who had children, those who had children who had completed their education and, indeed, those who were without children. They understood in particular that the prospective future of a child living next door or living over the road was something that materially affected the wellbeing, the safety, the prosperity and the security of the local area or a neighbourhood.
This is not merely anecdotal evidence, though. The fact that education and investment in education produce significant economic as well as social benefit is well understood. Indeed, one of Tasmania's favourite sons, the economist Saul Eslake, has recently delivered an address, the John West Memorial Lecture at the University of Tasmania. In it he highlighted, as I indicated earlier, the fact that the Tasmanian economy underperforms the average of the other state economies on a per capita basis by about 27 per cent or more. As I said previously, this is shameful. It is a structural issue which cannot be addressed by piecemeal investment.
I was proud to take policies to my electorate which supported both investments in infrastructure and long-term structural investment in improving educational outcomes in Tasmania. Chief amongst these policies was Labor's investment of $150 million in the $350 million University of Tasmania transformation project. This was an infrastructure project for the shorter term but, ultimately, a project which would deliver and will deliver increased participation in tertiary and further education. Coupled with Labor's commitment to infrastructure spending in the form of remediation of sewage contamination of the Tamar River, Labor took a comprehensive education and infrastructure program to the electorate whilst not neglecting the electorate's concerns to ensure that our public health system was preserved and properly funded.
Saul Eslake's John West Memorial Lecture provides significant insight into some of the likely causes of Tasmania's underperformance in economic terms. Some of them are the cause of contention, nevertheless. Whilst there is an ageing population which does not assist in the maintenance of gross state product, our lack of educational attainment must play a significant role in the poor economic performance of the Tasmanian economy.
Of course it is not the case, and I am not suggesting, that Tasmanian students or indeed Tasmanian workers are less intelligent or less capable of being trained. There is, however, a significant deficit in the numbers of Tasmanians who complete education to year 12, and a corresponding decline in the rates of Tasmanians who attain some sort of tertiary qualification. This is, of course, not a criticism of our teachers; nor is it appropriate to criticise the state's previous adoption of secondary colleges, as, in my experience with both Launceston College and Newstead College, to name just two of them, these institutions provide an inspiring and challenging environment, both at an academic and a practical level.
How then does this Liberal government propose to address this issue with a reduction—yes, a reduction—in funding to Tasmanian schools? It is absolutely extraordinary that the government claims additional investment in schools not just in Tasmania but elsewhere. However, the only way that they can make this extraordinary claim is by claiming that funds cut from the 2014 federal budget have been partially restored as part of their Gonski 2.0 education funding program.
It is even more extraordinary to sit in this place and hear those opposite claim, just as they did in the 2016 election campaign and earlier, that the cuts delivered in the 2014 federal budget were not cuts at all, on the basis that Labor's plan for delivery of Gonski was not 'fully funded'. This exercise in mental gymnastics—and, indeed, deception—proceeds on the basis that, for the years following the forward estimates, education funding was not in some way guaranteed, despite the existence of funding agreements between the federal and state governments in each jurisdiction.
Every school principal, every teacher and every parent of a child denied funding in the 2014 budget and subsequent budgets needs to understand that the Liberals perpetuated a fraud on the Australian public by claiming that there was not a dollar's difference between the Liberals and Labor on education funding, whilst claiming that years 5 and 6 of the Gonski funding plan proposed by Labor was unfunded.
The fact of the matter is that Gonski 2.0 delivers increased funding from the low base adopted in the 2014 federal budget. This enables the present government to claim increases in funding. But, put another way, what was a $30 billion cut in education is now a $22 billion cut. The Liberals demand credit for having introduced a less worse education package and now claim that what they have produced is needs based in accordance with the Gonski model. The original Gonski model was needs based and sector blind. This means that the funding was available based on disadvantage—of particular importance to my home state—in order that individual schools could reach the Schooling Resource Standard by 2018-19 and, in the case of Victoria, 2022.
Gonski 2.0 does nothing of the sort. Some schools will never reach the Schooling Resource Standard goal set by the original Gonski plan. What the Liberals propose is a bastardisation of the original proposal that funding be sector blind. What has been adopted is the opposite of a sector-blind approach—transitioning to a flat Commonwealth contribution of 20 per cent of SRS for all government schools and 80 per cent for all non-government schools over the 10 years until 2027.
Despite what I have said about significant disadvantage within the Tasmanian system, the indexation proposed under this legislation, in the name of Gonski 2.0, is the second level of indexation after the schools in the Northern Territory. I do wish to associate myself with all of the comments made by the member for Lingiari with respect to the level of disadvantage in the Northern Territory. What he said was true; but it is doubly true with respect to Tasmania. Why should we have the second lowest level of indexation? What sort of system produces the lowest and the second lowest rate of indexation for the two most disadvantaged education systems in the nation?
There are absurd—even shocking—consequences of this bastardisation of Gonski. Schools within Tasmania will lose $84 million or thereabouts in the next two years. But one private school within Tasmania, The Friends' School, a very fine school I might say, will receive more than $15 million in extra funding over the next 10 years. However, let's compare that to the impact of this legislation on Tasmania's public schools. If the Turnbull government has its way, public schools in Tasmania will be $68 billion worse off. Of the total funds cut from the Tasmania education system, 80 per cent will be lost by our public schools.
Labor's chief concerns with respect to this legislation show our commitment to needs-based, sector-blind education. The opposition is concerned that this legislation, and the policy decisions that have been made within this legislation, is detrimental irrespective of any argument about whether the package as a whole delivers more funding or less. Chief among our concerns is that state governments are no longer required to increase their funding to schools—something enshrined in the agreements that were reached within each of the jurisdictions, which operate on the basis that the states and the Commonwealth would cooperate but some would have to make greater investments to reach a common standard.
As a consequence of the abandonment of that fundamental principle, 85 per cent of public schools will not reach their fair funding level by 2027. I will say that again: 85 per cent of public schools will not reach their fair funding level by 2027. Less than 50 per cent of the extra funds in this package go to public schools compared to 80 per cent under the original Gonski package—that is, the Labor package. There are vastly different growth rates for different schools in different education systems. For example, Northern Territory public schools will have their funding increased by a mere 1.3 per cent a year over 10 years. The member for Lingiari has mentioned that. This means a cut. Given that this will not keep pace with inflation it is inevitable as a consequence that the government would be required to cut teachers or reduce support, hurting the most disadvantaged people in the country.
I have previously indicated my concerns about Tasmania. Tasmania is beset by disadvantage and, as a consequence, the original package provided significant benefits to Tasmania, particularly having regard to the number of public schools that are required to accommodate up to 70 per cent of children with disabilities and provide education to 80 per cent of children from low-income families. Of broad import to public education nationally is the fact that public schools educate 70 per cent of children from a language background other than English and 80 per cent of children from an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background.
The funding model proposed by Labor also had full public funding with all loadings for other form of disadvantage. This meant that Catholic schools and independent schools that provided for children with extra needs would also receive extra funding. I am concerned that the present government's funding model penalises Catholic schools both nationally and within Tasmania. These schools will suffer a real loss of funding, which may result in significant fee increases or, alternatively, cuts to staff. There is no detail as to how students with disability will be supported within the revised model despite the present government—or its predecessor—promising they would fix this in the 2013 federal election. The bill removes any commitment to delivering quality teaching and learning, any obligation to deliver school autonomy and the potential for principals and school communities to have an increased say in education at a local school. In short, the present government has thrown out the reform agreement and the individual agreements the Labor government negotiated with the states and territories. Labor will restore the Liberals $22 billion worth of cuts and properly fund our schools. We believe every child in every classroom deserves every opportunity. Similarly, the investment that Labor proposes is precisely that which is required to combat disadvantage in my home state of Tasmania.
Dr MIKE KELLY (Eden-Monaro) (17:25): What an Orwellian nightmare education policy has been these last four years under this government. I think we all remember the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, standing in front of the cameras and saying they were going to be no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no changes to pensions and no cuts to the ABC and SBS. It was like a litany of broken promises that then proceeded forth under the policy implementation phases of this government. Of course, we all remember those corflutes out around our electorates saying, 'The Liberals will match Labor's education funding dollar for dollar.' There was no little asterisk or footnote that said, 'But only through the forward estimates—not the full Gonski plan.' There was no qualification on that commitment. Obviously the community went forward on that basis, assuming that those commitments would be met, and were brutally disappointed with what happened during the backtracking on that policy. We heard this rhetoric: 'Funding isn't relevant to the education dilemma we face in this country. It's not important. It's a complete mistake to think that money has anything to do with this.' That rhetoric never satisfied the public. It never met the truth test for the public.
Of course now what we have seen from this Prime Minister and this government, in this next Orwellian phase, is that they have done the alcoholic's thing and recognised that there is a problem, saying, 'Yes, needs based funding is important, and funding is a part of the equation.' We have had this complete backflip from all the rhetoric that we heard over the last few years, and they have admitted that there is a problem. But then they say, 'But it doesn't need the funding levels that Labor has committed to and, by the way, if you are saying there is a cut, a difference, there isn't.' But we know there is from an exact quote from the Liberal Party document that announced this latest version of their policy. The words are very clear:
Compared to Labor's arrangements, this represents a savings of … $22.3 billion over 10 years
There is no question that this is a cut to the full national plan that Labor had introduced—the National Plan for School Improvement—to the schooling resource standard and to the fair funding level that Labor had agreed on with the stakeholders of 95 per cent of the school resourcing standard. That is the truth of the matter. That was the commitment Labor made and the arrangements that were entered into.
As the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, we always talk about sovereign risk in breaking agreements in the Defence contracting sector. Here was a massive sovereign risk issue that relates to the most fundamental problem that our nation faces. We heard all this wonderful rhetoric from the Prime Minister about the new economy, about being agile and about innovation and start-up support—all this stuff about the Industrial Revolution 4.0—but typically with this Prime Minister there was no substance following behind that. There was no recognition that, if that is the economy that we want, if that is the challenge that we face, then the most important investment that we can make is in knowledge infrastructure.
That has been compounded with a savage assault at both state and federal level on our TAFEs. Just recently we saw reports in New South Wales that there is a skills shortage of up to 54,000 workers, according to businesses in New South Wales. I spoke this morning about the shipbuilding part of the budget this year we have seen from the government. They talk about the great shipbuilding plan ahead while we have lost thousands of skilled workers in that space because of the failure of the government to bridge the gap—the so-called death valley—by bringing supply vessel construction home to Australia. The problem in meeting that skills shortage will be: where are they going to go to meet that demand? If they continue to savagely attack the TAFEs in the way they have, there is going to be a big issue there. That hurts nowhere more savagely than the rural and regional areas.
Coming back to this bill, that is one of the keys to that original plan. The original National Plan for School Improvement was really focused on particular programs. The funding was not there for its own sake; it funded the National Schools Partnership continuation, rural and regional loadings, Indigenous kids' loadings and disabled kids' loadings. These were critical programs. I have watched what transformations were achieved in schools in my region, in places such as Bega Public and Eden Public. We have significant challenges in schools like that. We have high levels of Indigenous kids. This is making a real difference. The full application of this program is so critical.
We cannot argue with the effect on New South Wales schools. I have a spreadsheet here of the 65 schools in Eden-Monaro that have been savagely affected by these cuts. This information comes from the New South Wales government. These 65 schools will lose $11.5 million in the next two years. To back that up, we have had the New South Wales Minister for Education, Rob Stokes, claim that this new policy will result in 'millions and millions less than we were expecting into schools in New South Wales over the next two years'. That was the New South Wales education minister. He is, of course, a coalition party person. The New South Wales Department of Education secretary, Mark Scott, wrote to all principals, stating the state education system stands to lose $846 million in 2018 and 2019.
In my own electorate of Eden-Monaro, the Deputy Premier of New South Wales and member for Monaro, Mr John Barilaro, has produced a petition for his constituents calling on the federal government to fully fund this program in the budget. So we have the Deputy Premier of New South Wales now running a petition to call on this government to meet those agreements it had with the state.
That is also being echoed by the New South Wales P&C Federation, which on 3 May said, 'We are adamant that the Federal Government must not renege on the funding promised under the Gonski agreement signed in 2013.' The Australian Education Union has called on Minister Birmingham and said:
Not only does Minister Birmingham have no plan to ensure all students attend a school with enough resources, he doesn't seem to care if they do.
… … …
Malcolm Turnbull has effectively abandoned the most disadvantaged schools and their students.
So we have heard from the ministers, we have heard from P&C and we have heard from party officials within the state of New South Wales. They have been saying this for quite some time now, including going back to Premier Mike Baird and his days in office.
I will take as an example a school like Karabar High School, which runs a very important distance education centre which services and supports a lot of students in my remoter areas of Eden-Monaro. Without that distance education function, they would not be getting specific educational support in particular subject areas that are not available to them because they do not have access to the teachers. I can imagine it is not easy to get a Japanese education teacher to come and teach in a remote high school in Eden-Monaro. This distance education centre function has really done a fantastic job of filling those holes. Karabar High is going to lose $980,000 over the next two years. Bega High is similar; they are the two worst-affected schools in my region. Queanbeyan South, with its very large Indigenous population of students, is really critically dependent upon this funding. This is going to really savagely hurt my schools. There is no question about it. These schools will feel it and understand that they are going to feel it.
When we talk about achieving these funding levels, I think one of the worst aspects of this is—one of the hidden features which is really something that underpins a lot of the faults in the budget the government has just produced—is that, in terms of the indexing mechanism, 75 per cent of the growth calculation is based on this assumption and forecast of a 3.3 per cent wage growth increase through this period that is forecast in the budget. That is beyond heroic. It contrasts dramatically with the mechanism that Labor set, which was not an indexation to wage growth; it was a set-in-concrete 3.6 per cent growth mechanism. This 3.3 per cent wage mechanism also underpins a fatal flaw in this program, which will be revealed in time—unless, of course, we can change governments in the meantime and get this policy back on track.
Many of my colleagues have also referred to the Catholic system. This is a critical issue in my region as well. A lot of the schools in the ACT have really been savaged by these cuts. I do not think people fully appreciate or understand—certainly, the government does not—that a lot of the lower socioeconomic group families in my region send their kids to Catholic schools in the ACT, so that SES sort of mechanism does not actually capture the full story for the schoolkids that they support in my region. Kids from Yass, Murrumbateman, Gundaroo, Sutton, Braidwood, Bungendore, Captains Flat, Cooma, Michelago and Bredbo all come to schools in the ACT—quite a lot of them. In fact, it is quite a startling figure for Queanbeyan. It is somewhere around 67 per cent of the high school kids from Queanbeyan who go across the border for school. That is largely to schools like St Clare's College, St Edmund's College and Mary MacKillop College.
Mary MacKillop College is a great example. It provides fantastic support for our kids with disabilities from the region. They would not have been able to find that support in any other place. The principal of Mary MacKillop College is wonderful man who is doing a terrific job at that school. He came to the large gathering we had at St Clare's College a few weeks ago, which was just packed out. The parents there were just packed to the rafters, concerned about these cuts to the schools. Principal Michael Lee brought along one of the disabled kids to highlight how this particular child was going to be affected by these cuts.
Since then, Michael is also posted an open letter to the parents of Mary MacKillop students. It is quite startling. It is right on the front page of the Mary MacKillop College website. I recommend people go and visit it. This letter from principal Michael Lee to the parents says:
I have tried to communicate with you in a calm and informed manner and have passed on information from CE Director Ross Fox and the NCEC. Some things to remember:
1.The base funding of all students at MacKillop has been frozen for 10 years and then will be cut. This includes students with disabilities. This was confirmed to me over the phone by Minister Birmingham's office. This is a disgrace and is not fair!
2.After 10 years, MacKillop's funding will be cut by $777 per student, a net loss of $4.6m.
3.Over the same period, Canberra Girls' Grammar will receive additional funding of $8.8m. I do not begrudge CGGS getting this money but it does not fit any fairness test in my mind and does make one question the Prime Minister's claim that the Gonski 2.0 model is "fair for all."
That is a telling point from the principal.
He finishes, in the last paragraph of that letter to his parents, with stating:
… Clearly the Gonski 2.0 funding model is unraveling as the government's figures change and are challenged.
They are doing their best to work within the situation that they are confronted with. The confusion, the chaos and the uncertainty that has been thrown into school planning around this is incalculable. The impact on the development of curricula and the establishment and support for the courses that students in our region need is now under a massive question mark.
This is just not right. We have put many options on the table for budgetary savings. We are prepared to be cooperative and collaborative with this government to find those savings and to work together across the table to achieve that. Of course, there is going to be political argy-bargy and all of these things, but this is an area where I think we could sit around a table and seek some agreement. This is funding that is absolutely critical.
We know right now that we are falling behind our region. We are seeing a world where change is dramatic. Moore's Law from the computer sphere is now applying across many areas and sectors, none more so than education. We are seeing the development of the concepts of through-life learning that are so important, because the evolution and dramatic changes within workplaces and the careers of our kids will be dramatic. We need to be able to focus on giving our kids the analytical, imaginative and cognitive skills and tools that they will need to meet the challenging world ahead of them and to provide the framework imaginatively in our education structures that enables them to have that lifelong learning capability. If we are going to set the pension age at 70, unless we provide that through-life education support, then we are joking. We will not be providing the sort of society and future that our kids need and deserve.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (17:40): I rise to speak on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. Labor strongly opposes this bill, and I will now explain why this Point Piper plan is bad for Australian kids. I begin with a bit of education, personal and then national. I taught English and geography in state and Catholic schools for 11 years. I have two sons, one at a state primary school and the other at a Catholic high school. I was also a union organiser in the non-government sector for a few years. So I am passionate about education—my kids' education, all Moreton children's education and in fact all Australian children's education.
Strong education and Labor values fit hand in glove. Let me be clear up-front: this bill is about funding our children's education and is not about the quality of teaching in Australian schools. However, it is about the ability of those teachers and associated staff to provide the education that every child deserves and every good parent hopes for. It is about the number of teachers and support staff who will be teaching in our schools. It is about the ability of schools to provide the specialist programs that benefit thousands. It is about schools' ability to provide additional in-class help and their ability to provide extra literacy and numeracy programs. And it is about the ability to provide extension programs for gifted and talented students. It is vital that we get the funding model for our schools right. Our future prosperity, my children's future prosperity, is linked to this imperative.
The Turnbull government's funding model, contained in this bill, is not a fair or equitable funding model. It is more 'conski' than Gonski. Most teachers understand what a fair or equitable funding model is, and perhaps some parents do. For the benefit of the government, I will explain. There is a great example in this United States cartoon from the Education Trust, and I seek leave from Minister Fletcher, who is at the table, to table this cartoon.
Leave not granted.
Mr PERRETT: In the first frame of this cartoon, three children are behind a fence trying to watch a baseball game—one very tall, who can clearly see the game; one a bit shorter, who cannot quite see over the fence; and one very short, who cannot see the game at all. Each one gets a crate to stand on. The very tall child can see very clearly, the shorter child can now see the game over the fence, but the very short child cannot see the game at all, despite having a crate. This is an example of equality of funding: each child gets their own crate. But, if we look at the second frame of the cartoon, we see that the tallest child, who does not need a crate, gives his crate to the shortest child, who needs more than one crate. So each child can now watch the baseball. This is an example of funding equity or what we would call needs based funding.
Needs based funding is fair. The Point Piper plan is not needs based funding. The economy, we know, is under strain. Gross debt under the LNP is about to hit half a trillion dollars for the first time ever. That is more zeros than Pearl Harbor, to paraphrase James Jeffrey. This means the number of crates, which is obviously always finite, is now particularly acute. The Turnbull government is abandoning sector-blind needs based funding. We know this because, under Prime Minister Turnbull's funding model, one of the best resourced schools in Australia, Geelong Grammar, will get a funding increase of $16.6 million while a local Catholic primary school, Good Shepherd Catholic Primary School, just down the road from Parliament House, will get a funding cut of $2.6 million.
So how did we get here? Let me give a quick history lesson that touches on the allocation of Commonwealth general recurrent funding for non-government schools. Note state schools, as the name suggests, are run by the states. So sections 51 and 52 of the Constitution do not list schools as a Commonwealth responsibility, but, as we know, Canberra has most of the money. From 1985 to 2000, funds to non-state schools were distributed according to the Education Resource Index. The ERI determined need according to the capacity of the non-government school to generate its own income through fees, investments, fundraising and donations, compared to a standard level of resource. The resource standard is known as the Average Government School Recurrent Costs—or the AGSRC. Note that this is an average. So you actually have to compare what it costs to have a one-teacher school out at Westmar with a big primary school like Warrigal Road with 1,200 kids in my electorate. But you could come up with an average. The higher the school's ERI the lower the level of general recurrent funding it receives. The ERI funding model had 12 funding levels, with category 1 schools—the richest—needing the least funding. It is noteworthy that all Catholic schools in Queensland were category 11—all. This is important. Later, I will return to Catholic schools. So those 302 Catholic schools in Queensland currently—five dioceses, 22 order-owned schools, 27 different employers, with 146,200 students—were all indexed under that scheme at ERI 11. I note that all of those schools—all of those employers—only got one hour of consultation with Minister Birmingham before he announced this new model. Disgraceful!
After the ERI, we went to the socio-economic status funding system. It was introduced by the Howard government in 2001. It assessed the rate of government recurrent funding by estimating the capacity of a school's community to support it. So capacity was calculated by linking student residential addresses to the latest census collection district data. Census only occurs every five years. Although, last year, under the LNP, we almost had no census. But, normally, even if it is held every five years, there is still a lag. What does the census data and SES do? It ranks the income, education and occupation of the parents of schoolkids. So a non-government school's SES score determined its per student general recurrent funding rate as a percentage of the resource standard—the AGSRC. There were 46 funding scores—not 12—under this model, ranging from 13.7 per cent of the resource standard to 70 per cent of the resource standard. Remember that the resource standard is the cost of educating a kid in a state primary or state secondary school.
However, when John Howard's Liberal Party introduced the SES system they made a commitment to the non-government schools that no school would be financially worse off. So you had schools that were called the 'funding maintained' schools. Catholic schools only joined the SES system in 2005 but were also able to maintain their pre-SES funding rate. Overall, 48 per cent of non-government schools were funding maintained. Effectively, they were individual side deals to the Howard government's SES funding model.
Julia Gillard, as Minister for Education in 2010, announced the review of funding for schooling—the most comprehensive review since the early 1970s. That final report in 2012 provided a blueprint for a complete overhaul of school funding models. The core recommendation from that report was that the level of recurrent funding for all students should be determined by a school resource standard, with per student amounts based on the resources used by high-achieving schools. Government schools were to receive the full amount of the per student SRS. Non-government schools would receive an SRS adjusted, according to the anticipated level of the private contributions the school could access. Then loadings for disadvantage would apply to all eligible students regardless of the school they attended. So loadings for disadvantage would be rural and remote, Indigenous and a few other things.
The SRS is a sector-blind funding model. The name above the school gates would be immaterial in determining the needs of the kid who passed through that gate. The Gillard Labor government implemented this funding model and introduced an improvement framework for schools and teaching—that is, we did not just give money. We also made sure that the states and systems—the independents, the Catholics—all had to stay engaged, especially with their financial commitment. The Gillard government's goal was to ensure that by 2025 Australia would be ranked among the top five countries in the world for student performance in reading, science and mathematics. The Turnbull government, to its great shame, has officially abandoned this goal. But I will come back to this later.
If we scrutinise the Point Piper plan, we can see why. This legislation before the chamber introduces a few things that are very noteworthy and worrying. One of the key changes to school funding under the Point Piper plan is that Commonwealth funding will transition over 10 years to a flat 20 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard to all government schools and 80 per cent of SRS to all non-government schools. So the Liberal Party has walked away from sector-blind funding. The Liberal Party has walked away from needs based funding. The Liberal Party has walked away from delivering the best opportunity for every child in every school. Going back to that cartoon that Minister Fletcher would not would let me table, and the crates, it is not fair or equitable to give each school a crate. Some schools need more crates and some schools need fewer. Schools need to be provided with the resources they need to give every child the best opportunity to succeed. That is not always equal, but it is fair.
Another change to the school funding model under the Point Piper plan is about so-called side deals. Under the current scheme, the minister can determine an SRS score for a group of schools, for example, the Queensland Catholics. This bill removes that ability but instead—wait for it—will allow the minister to determine the SRS score for each individual, non-government school. This Point Piper plan allows for 9,414 deals and rising, so do not lecture about the 24 deals that the Gillard Labor government secured. We get lectured about the 27—I should point out there are six states and two territories, each with three systems. That is 24, as far as my maths works out, not 27. You, opposite, are just making up numbers.
Sadly, the Point Piper plan also changes the disability loading. There will be different levels of loading determined by whether students with disability require (1) teacher only—which means no support, (2) supplementary, (3) substantial or (4) extensive support. However, the amounts for these loadings have not been released and are proposed to be set by regulation. The Point Piper plan says, 'Trust us; we are the Liberal Party.' The data used to calculate disability loading is proposed to be taken from the nationally consistent collection of data—the data that the education minister said in December last year 'failed a basic credibility test.' In February this year he said it:
… hasn't come to a credible landing point just yet.
Children with disabilities, no matter which education sector they choose, deserve to have the best support they need to give themselves the best educational opportunities in life. Most telling of all is that the Point Piper plan before the chamber now removes the objective in the current act, which says:
All students in all schools are entitled to an excellent education.
That is gone—removed. To change this proves beyond doubt that the Turnbull government does not care about the education of all Australian children. But we already knew that. Why else would the Liberals rip $22.3 billion from schoolkids while the Prime Minister introduces a $65.4 billion tax giveaway for big business? This dastardly deed typifies the coalescence of vast carelessness that is the modern Liberal Party. This cut is equivalent to cutting $2.4 million from every school in Australia or sacking 22,000 teachers.
Sadly, the Liberal Party has become a mere cluster of selfishness. Parents and teachers know that schools will be worse off under this Point Piper plan. State schools will be worse off. Some 85 per cent of public schools will not reach their fair funding level by 2027 under the Turnbull government's model. The Point Piper plan gives less than 50 per cent of extra funding to public schools. Labor's needs based funding model provides 80 per cent of extra funding to public schools. I know that state budgets are already under pressure. Obviously, Prime Minister Turnbull thinks they should raise their own taxes. Do you remember that thought bubble at the Penrith Panthers when he stood there with New South Wales Rugby league legend Phil Gould and announced a plan to hand the states income taxing powers? Prime Minister Turnbull said it was:
… the most fundamental reform to the federation in generations.
Maybe it is a Phil thing, because it was the worst pass on a rugby league ground since Phil Sigsworth made that in-goal pass to Phil Duke in the third State of Origin in 1982. And, go the Maroons!
Labor understands education. We know that public schools currently cater for seven out of 10 kids with a disability. We know that seven out of ten kids from a language background other than English go to a state school, eight out of 10 ATSI kids go to a state school, and eight out of 10 kids from low-income families go to a state school. These communities will suffer under the Point Piper plan. Catholic schools also will be worse off. The National Catholic Education Commission has said:
Now that Catholic school systems have seen the Government’s modelling, some schools and systems are finding the policy will impose immediate and inexplicable funding cuts on their schools.
I am a Catholic, I do declare that—not always a good one, but my faith calls, guides and comforts me. I was taught by nuns and have a child in a Catholic school. I taught in two Catholic schools and I know that I am biased when it comes to Catholicism. But I also know that social justice has always been at the core of Catholic education. Catholic schools are built on the understanding that different schools require different levels of resourcing. Catholic families, especially in Queensland, have always supported the neediest; you sign up to give if you can—it is an article of faith.
The member for Wentworth fundamentally does not understand how school systems work. He does not understand that not all states and all systems are able to fund their school systems to the same capacity. Labor's target was that all schools would receive 95 per cent of the SRS by 2019, or 2022 for Victoria. The Point Piper plan locks in 20 per cent of SRS for government schools and 80 per cent for non-government schools. The Turnbull government has set sector-specific rates for education funding. This is not sector-blind funding. (Time expired)
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (17:55): It is a pleasure to follow the member for Moreton in speaking in this debate on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. From the outset, I will make it clear that I support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in respect of this legislation.
Like so much of what the Turnbull government does and says, there is more spin than substance in its rhetoric. That is very much the case with respect to this legislation and the funding proposed within it. Like most things that this government also does, the Australian people will very quickly see through it—and they have done so with respect to the proposed school funding.
The truth of the matter is that the Australian people no longer believe this Prime Minister. And whilst the Prime Minister thinks that if he screams louder, as he does every day when he comes into question time, that they might hear him, I say to him that he is wrong. People are not interested in how loud he screams, but they are interested in what he has to say. The reality is that what he has to say is neither convincing nor, in fact, the truth.
I do not think that anyone in this House would disagree that education funding is absolutely critical to the future of the individual child and to the future of our nation. We compete in a world where those who are the best educated seem to make the most progress and get ahead. We understand that. We understand that if we are to remain competitive then we need to have a good education system. Again, I do not think that anyone in this place would disagree with that, that the system could do with a great deal of improvement. That is why the Gonski report that was commissioned by the previous Labor government is now the subject of debate. It was all about trying to set up a better system than we had previously.
But when you have a system like the one brought into this parliament by the Turnbull government, in which every individual public school, every individual private school and every sector within the education portfolio—whether public, independent or Catholic—can all do their own sums, and in most cases have come back and said to us, 'When we do our own sums the announcements simply don't stack up, because we are going to be worse off,' then you have to wonder why members opposite continue to beat their own spin lines that this is good funding for education. Indeed, I have noticed how few members opposite have come in to defend this legislation. If it were so good I would have expected that every one of them would have been lining up to speak about it so that they could, in turn, send their speeches out to their communities. But they are not in here defending it because they know that it has come under criticism, and rightly so, from across the board.
It is true that this legislation offers more money than what the previous Abbott and then Turnbull governments promised in 2014. But it falls well short of what was promised in the 2013 election, when the coalition went to that election claiming that they were on a unity ticket with Labor with respect to education funding, that they would match Labor's funding commitment. Well, they have not, and the reality is that had they matched Labor's commitment at that time there would be an extra $22.3 billion over the next 10 years allocated to education in this country. That is not my figure; that is the government's own figure that they were prepared to put on a briefing note with respect to the effects of this legislation. And when you go through the figures, that is about right, because it is roughly $2 billion per year less that is going to education as a result of this proposal, and $6.3 billion less over the next four years. This is from the government's own documents.
The government are again coming into this place with rubbery figures to justify what they are saying and defend their position. Trevor Cobbold, the national convener of Save Our Schools, has done his own independent analysis of the funding and he claims that the total increase per student over 10 years amounts to only about 40 per cent of the increase planned under the original Gonski funding package that the government was supposedly on a unity ticket with Labor on in 2013.
I want to talk for a moment about some of the messaging I have picked up from members opposite with respect to this legislation. If members recall, it was only last year or the year before when members opposite would come into this place and say that education funding does not really matter—it is not about funding; it is about the way we organise courses and curriculums within the schools. Those few members who have come in to defend this legislation have suddenly seen the light and have said how terrific this additional funding is for the schools in their area, talking about all the wonderful things that those schools will be able to achieve. The reality is that funding does matter and, as other speakers on this side of the House have pointed out, those schools that are better resourced and better funded end up producing students who do better.
The government says this is sector-blind funding. Again, if you go through the analysis of who is going to get what, this is not sector-blind funding. I listened to the Minister for Education a week ago addressing the independent schools on this issue. A question was asked of him about a school that was going to be losing funding, and the minister's response was along the lines of 'Please keep talking to my department because I am sure we can work through this'—in other words, 'We will do what we think is appropriate for your school and we will find a way of doing it'. This is a policy that was cobbled together on the run and, quite frankly, on scrutiny it does not stack up.
We hear from the government every day criticism of the multiple agreements that were in place under the Labor government. Again, as many members on this side of the House have quite rightly pointed out, every school and every sector within every state has a different starting point because of the kind of funding arrangements that have been in place for decades. It is therefore not surprising that we have a whole range of different agreements in order to start where those schools currently are and then gradually bring them all to the same place. It seems to me that there would be no other way of doing it and indeed, again, I suspect that this is an attempt to do the same by this government except they have decided to start at a different point.
Members opposite say that the government are not cutting education funding, and they point to the fact that, supposedly, the funding that was previously committed was over a 10-year period, it was not in the forward estimates, there was no funding set aside, et cetera. They also say that we have to balance the budget. You cannot have it both ways—you cannot be saying, 'We are not cutting funding but we have to balance the budget'. The truth of the matter is that by saying they have to balance the budget they are admitting that they are making cuts. There is also the argument about where the funding is coming from. I will come to that a bit later on, but there is funding available because the budget is about choices and the truth of the matter is that if the government wants to prioritise education it could do so by making cuts in other areas—cuts that I will talk about if time permits me to do so.
This is a proposal which, quite frankly, disadvantages many schools across the country and I want to talk just for a moment about some of the differentiation I have picked up within it. In particular, I note there is a cut in funding to the Catholic education sector. I do not want to buy into arguments about the differences between the various sectors because, quite frankly, they are all based on historical differences and I have no doubt that each of the sectors could quite forcibly argue their case as to why the amount of funding they are receiving is appropriate for their schools. But what I will say is this: firstly, every school should be entitled to an increase as a result of, if nothing more, the CPI increases on a yearly basis. Secondly, every school should also be entitled to additional funds if there are additional enrolments at their school. So there would be, in my view, an automatic increase in the amount of funding that would, under normal circumstances, be allocated to the education portfolio if nothing else changed and we simply followed the CPI increase and enrolment number increases. It is my understanding that those two indexes have not been followed through and accounted for in the same way as the funding that will go to all schools under this proposition.
There is another matter with respect to the Catholic sector. Again, my understanding is that the Catholic schools in this country—some 1,737 of them—account for some 20 per cent of all the school students across Australia. That means that tens of thousands of children are currently going to Catholic schools across the country. Some of them have just started, some are midway through their schooling and some of them are perhaps close to the end. The government propose to cut their funding without, to my knowledge, having at any stage consulted with the Catholic sector—and, if they did consult, it was absolutely minimal. Had the government bothered to consult, they perhaps would not be in the mess they are currently in with respect to the funding that is going to go to Catholic schools.
It is unfair on those schools, but it is even more unfair on the parents of those children who made a conscious choice to send their children to the school they did based on their understanding of the fees that they would incur. Before they select a school for their children, most parents would look around and find out what they are committing themselves to and how much it is going to cost them. They have now made that choice and they are suddenly going to be hit with additional costs that many of those schools will have to pass on to them because my understanding is that many of the Catholic schools will have their funding cut. The member for Eden-Monaro, who spoke earlier, pointed out a very good example of that. It is totally unfair to do that, and I would defend any school sector—public, Catholic or independent—if they were being treated that way. If there is an anomaly in the system there should, at the very least, be consultation with the sector so that it can be worked out over a period of time that allows the sector and the families of the children who go to those schools time to adjust to the changes that need to be made.
The last point I want to make is on the funding that goes to South Australia. My understanding is that South Australia stands to lose some $265 million from the public school funding that will go to the state over the next two years. One of the schools that is going to be hit hard by that is a school in my electorate, the Roma Mitchell Secondary College, which will get a cut of $1.2 million over the next two years. Again, if I look at the modelling done by Trevor Cobbold of the funding and how it goes to each of the states, I see that the Northern Territory, Tasmania and South Australia are going to be the hardest hit as a result of this funding allocation by this government. I would suggest that the Northern Territory, Tasmania and South Australia are areas with some of the highest social needs, and they are going to be hit the hardest.
That is why this funding is being criticised and is not being supported by hardly any of the sectors. Indeed, when I look at the education sector more broadly, it seems that whichever way this government turns with this funding it has come under criticism. A policy that I am sure that the government brought into this place believing that it would be a winner for the government has turned into a nightmare for it because, when you study the detail of it, it simply does not stack up to the claims that this government makes.
Finally, I would make the point that this is a government that has choices—like all governments do. It brought into this place a budget only this month, and we now know that, in the context of this budget, $65 billion is going to be allocated for tax cuts to multinational companies and big business. I accept that $24 billion of that has already been committed to, but there is another $40 billion that this government wants to give to any company that has a turnover of more than $50 million. It does have a choice: it could put that $40 million into health and education, and it could restore the $22.3 billion in education funding that it has cut.
The argument that the government puts forward in support of the $40 billion of tax cuts is that it will add to the gross domestic product of this country. It will add, even at the best estimates, some one per cent between now and the next 20 years. I put it to the government that another $22 billion in education funding would deliver much more economic growth and much more prosperity to this government than would the tax cuts that it proposes to make to big business, many of which will go offshore and never be seen by people in Australia.
The government has got its priorities wrong. This was an opportunity to fix education funding once and for all, and again this government has failed that test.
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (18:10): I am glad of the opportunity to speak on this bill, the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. Early childhood and school education is the delivery mechanism and the guarantor of Australia's most important values and the guarantor of our most important social and economic achievements. It is the bedrock of egalitarianism. It is the bedrock of equality of opportunity and social mobility in Australia. It has evolved over a long time. It needs to keep evolving, especially at a time of rising inequality, a time of economic and technological change and a time of great change and challenges in our region.
This bill, unfortunately, does not represent the necessary next step in Australia's school education system. In fact, it represents a stymieing of reform. Yes, it involves a long backward step in the quantum of funding when compared to Labor's policy: $22 billion, in total, over 10 years; on average, $2.4 million per school, and, in my state of Western Australia, over the next four years alone, $650 million.
But the worst aspects of the government's policy, as represented in this bill, are the abandonment of key principles and objectives of the Gonski review—the abandonment of a genuinely sector-blind needs-based system that was to be focused on achieving objective resource standards according to a sensibly urgent timetable with a shared effort by the Commonwealth and the states. That is the much-needed transformation of schools in Australia that Labor sought to deliver. It is a reform that this bill ignores and undermines.
It was not that long ago that developed nations like Australia transcended the poorhouses and the workhouses and overcame the social prejudice and economic orthodoxy that said that 99 in 100 people were destined more or less to a life of subsistence and mere poverty. It was not that long ago that a vast gulf existed between the very few haves and the very many have-nots. And that gulf was as clear in terms of education as it was in terms of material wellbeing. Lack of education consigned people to impoverished lives and lives of exclusion. The more marginal your position was, the worse you were affected. If you were a woman, if you were a person with disability, if you were a migrant, you were more than likely to be excluded from education and excluded from social and economic participation.
The law of population, the iron law of wages, the wage-fund theory—all these explanations of political economy that prevailed at the end of the 19th century assumed that the large majority of people would be condemned to live on the edge of poverty. It was only through the work of progressive economists and social activists like Alfred Marshall and Beatrice Potter that we gradually began to turn away from some presumed law of the jungle. We turned away from the lie of meritocracy and a game stacked against people without means, capital, education and skills.
It was really only through that revolution—the revolution of comprehensive public school education, coupled with the development of the social safety net—that countries like Australia were able to evolve into the modern, inclusive, egalitarian society that we enjoy today. To the extent that many people in Australia are able to participate fairly in economic and social life, it is because comprehensive school education came along to enable that.
But it would be a huge mistake to think the challenges for school education in Australia and its role in increasing opportunity, lifting social inclusion and reducing inequality were all tackled and conquered in the 19th and early 20th century. That is just not the case. I can remember being at high school in the 1980s. It was not at all uncommon in the 1980s, by the time you got to year 9, to be having conversations with your peers about whether you would go beyond year 10. When the Hawke government was elected, completion of high school in this country was 40 per cent. By 1991, through the efforts of the Hawke-Keating government, we were at 70 per cent. Now we are close to 85 per cent. That was a massive change, and a relatively recent one, but it is still not experienced evenly across our society. In 2016, only 60 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders completed high school. That is a substantial increase from 2008, when it was 45 per cent, but it is substantially below the achievement of the general population.
I have schools in my electorate that vary greatly—most members would. In my electorate, according to the Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage, I have a primary school where there are 71 students in the bottom quartile. I have a high school that has 61 per cent of its students in the bottom quartile of the Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage. By contrast, I have schools where there is only one or two per cent in that quartile. That is the range of socioeconomic advantage or disadvantage within a metropolitan electorate like Fremantle. In other parts of the country the disparity is much greater and the challenge is much greater.
When it comes to Indigenous disadvantage, our school system has a particularly important role to play. One of the things I hold onto when I have looked at the Closing the gap report over the last few years is the fact that when Indigenous kids—Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islander kids—finish university their employment outcomes are no different than any Australian who finishes university. That is a heartening statistic, but the extent to which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students finish high school and go on to university is still extraordinarily poor. Forty-six per cent of non-Indigenous students who complete year 12 gain a university entrance score. Currently, it is only about 10 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. If we consider that the concept behind needs-based funding is the idea that you get resources to where they are most needed and that you enable people facing disadvantage to have the kids of opportunities everybody should have, the circumstances of our Indigenous brothers and sisters make a compelling case for that kind of change.
The challenge at the beginning of the 21st century here in Australia—it is a big challenge—is to address our falling comparative performance, to achieve fairness and consistency across this nation and schools across this country and to provide a mechanism to deliver additional funding to schools that need it most. This bill and this policy abandon that challenge. It categorically fails to help our school education system take the next step. It is a failure of imagination and it is a failure of leadership. This bill and this policy reduce funding overall—that much we know.
In my state of Western Australia—which exists in a slightly anomalous situation because the former Liberal Barnett government did not sign up to needs based funding in any way, shape or form—the gap is not between what the Labor policy would have delivered and the plan that has just been released and is contained in this bill; the gap is in the budget papers of the former Barnett government. They had an expectation based on their conversations with the current government of increased funding over the next four years. They carried those figures in their budget papers—the budget papers of the new Western Australian Labor government has just inherited—and there is a $650 million hole in schools funding for Western Australian schools between what the Barnett government carried in its budget papers and what the Turnbull government is now proposing to deliver.
This bill and this policy reduces funding most sharply to the states that need it most. Schools that need assistance the most are in the Northern Territory, and the Northern Territory faces the largest cut. After the Northern Territory, the state that needs help the most is Tasmania, and it faces the next-biggest cut. This short-changes public schools. Public schools do the heavy lifting in the task of increasing opportunity, decreasing inequality, working to deliver the Australian promise of egalitarianism in this country. Public schools teach 80 per cent of Australia's poorest children, 80 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids and 70 per cent of kids with a disability. And under Labor's program 80 per cent of the funding from the Commonwealth would go to public schools. Less than 50 per cent of all funding under the Turnbull government's program goes to public schools.
This bill fails in the critical area of securing a shared effort and shared commitment from the Commonwealth and the states, and that was one of the key elements of Labor's plan. The coalition has committed to providing by 2027 only 80 per cent of the fair funding level to private schools and 20 per cent of the fair funding level to public schools. But there is no requirement that states and territories increase their funding. That means there can be no confidence whatsoever that Australian schools will reach a fair level of funding, which is 95 per cent of the schooling resource standard—not by 2027, which is eight years later than Labor's program, and, more than likely, not ever.
When you take all those things together—all those shortcomings, all those failures—you can understand why this bill is not just a huge cut in funding, not just a huge delay in funding, not just a failure of leadership in what should be a shared effort between the Commonwealth and the states to a step change in education in this country. This bill is simply not needs based funding, when you get down to it. Needs based funding is the next step in Australian school education that we so badly need, and this bill fails to deliver it.
I am the son of a teacher. My mum is 70. She still relief teaches. She teaches special needs kids. When I was young she taught kindergarten. At one point I attended a mixed school of hearing impaired and deaf kids at which my mum taught. I am the beneficiary of a number of government schools. My parents parted ways when I was pretty young, and we moved around. I went to Subiaco Primary; Margaret River Primary, in the south-west, and back up to Fremantle Primary School. I went to John Curtin Senior High School, and then I went to Swanbourne Senior High School. I did a year at a school in India when I was eight or nine. I spent a year and a half at a junior high school in Long Island, New York, when I was about 12 or 13. So, I have seen a few schools.
I did not have to overcome any particular disadvantage other than moving around, but I was enormously assisted and shaped to be the person I am today by government school education, by public schools. I still remember my high school English teach, John Cox, who made it a kind of noble enthusiasm for otherwise boisterous young Australian blokes to enjoy English literature, and that became a lifelong love, something I went on to study at university and did my masters in. I had a maths teacher, when I first started at Swanbourne High School—I had missed a lot of maths and did not have the foundations—and sat next to a kid who seemed to know what he was doing, and half the time I copied what he was doing to get by, and the rest of the time I guess I started becoming a bit of a class clown. I can remember that Mrs Livesey used to have this stock phrase that she used to say about every test: that the results went from the sublime to the ridiculous. I remember coming into her class one day and she said: 'Students, I've got the results of your test. As usual, the tests went from the sublime to the ridiculous. One student got 20 out of 20 and another student got zero.' I could not believe that; I though zero was just too funny, and I said something silly. I said, 'Seriously, how could you get zero?' And she said: 'Mr Wilson, I would sit down if I were you. I'm holding the paper that got zero, and it's got your name on it.' She took me aside after that lesson and said: 'Josh, I know you are playing the clown but I think you can do a lot better at maths. I am prepared to stay after with you and help you learn how to factorise trinomials, but I am not going to give up my time lightly. If you are serious about it, I will stay after school with you; but, if you are not, let's not waste our time.' I did take her up on that, and I actually went on to do higher maths subjects in my last few years, and it was really only because of that extra effort. It made a difference in my life. It makes a difference in the life of every kid. But it needs to be better and it needs to particularly make a difference in the lives of Australian school children who need it most.
School education is the best hope for any society that wants its children to know the joy of learning, to get a fair chance to be whatever they want to be, to benefit from the economic, social and personal development that learning opens up and to be shaped by caring and inclusive school communities, principals, teachers and staff, friends and networks of families that make up those communities. Labor in government grasped the nettle of the next big step change in schools education. That is what the Gonski plan was going to be. This bill walks away from that work and that opportunity. It is not Gonski 2.0. It is not a watered down version of Gonski— (Time expired)
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (18:26): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak briefly on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 while my voice holds out. In my view, it is arguably the most important bill that we will be discussing in this term of parliament. I begin with the observation of why I think this side of the House is so passionate about school education and getting the funding right. We have just heard from the member for Fremantle and his passionate words on education. From the Leader of the Opposition down—whether it be our spokespeople, the member for Sydney or the member for Scullin, who is at the table here, or our local members such as the member for Batman or whether it be former teachers like the member for Moreton or former principals like the member for Lalor—education is one of the main reasons we are in this place. We understand the transformative impact that education can have on people's lives.
If we want an economy which is inclusive, if we want economic growth which is genuinely inclusive and gives people a stake in the contribution they make to this country, then it really begins with making sure that we properly fund our schools. That transformative impact is what this bill is about. If we want the opportunity of education to be more than a slogan in this country, if we want it to be more than a shibboleth that people mouth without any meaning, then we need to fund our schools better. We need to find more effective ways to fund our schools. I know from my own personal point of view that, if we could just do one thing in this place, this would be it. We would better fund our schools and we would give all of our kids, not just some of our kids, the opportunity to succeed and prosper. That is how we get genuine social mobility in this country. That is how we attack the scourge of intergenerational disadvantage in this country.
Arguably, the worst thing we have in this country—and you see it my electorate and I think you probably see it in the member for Scullin's electorate and right around the country—is pockets of disadvantage. Disadvantage is a cancer as it is, but when it is handed down through generations it does enormous damage to our economy; but, far more importantly, it does enormous damage to our society, to our neighbourhoods and to our communities. That is why this bill matters so much. All we are really asking from the government is for kids in my electorate and electorates like mine to have the same life chances, beginning with a school education, as kids in the Prime Minister's electorate. I think for a country like ours, a country that cherishes the fair go, that cares deeply about our egalitarian past—if we care deeply about making egalitarianism and a fair go part of our future and not just part of our past—we would give kids the same chance in my electorate as those in the Prime Minister's electorate. That is what this bill is all about. In many ways this bill is a missed opportunity.
Imagine if the Prime Minister had stood up that day and said, 'Look, I've got a whole bunch of things wrong and my predecessor the member for Warringah got a whole bunch of things wrong, and we are genuinely, not just in words but in deeds, going to reset what this government is about.' Imagine if he had stood up and said, 'We are going to make the nation's highest priority to properly fund our schools? We are going to make this the national project that we care most about that in country.' If he had said that and meant it, and if he had backed it up with dollars, we would have been there with him. Instead, we have this absurd situation where those opposite are expecting a pat on the back for $22 billion in cuts to school education in this country; just because it is not quite as bad as the member for Warringah was proposing, the member for Wentworth wants a pat on the back for those $22 billion in cuts. I think it says it all about this government that at the same time they are pulling $22 billion out of our schools they want to give $65 billion to big multinational corporations in this country. Only a Prime Minister as out of touch as this one could dare to describe that situation as fair and then want a pat on the back for being not quite as bad—almost as bad, but not quite as bad—as the member for Warringah. I just cannot imagine what could be more out of touch or less fair than saying to the teachers, students and families of this country: 'We're going to pull money out of his schools. But don't worry, we're going to give it to the big companies in this country, who are going to send a big chunk of its overseas!' You cannot make this stuff up. It is an extraordinary situation that those opposite want to drag our country into.
If those opposite had a clue about the work that goes into schools in my electorate—teachers, parents and kids all working together and using the resources that they have available to try and make sure that kids do not fall behind—if they knew what was happening at Browns Plains Primary, where I was a few weeks ago, if they knew what was happening at Berrinba East, Woodridge North or Daisy Hill, where I was on Friday, or Algester, where I was on Saturday, if they had any idea about the good that is being done in my 43 schools and in schools right around the country with the money that Labor had allocated, then they would not be going down the path that they are going down. The problem is that they either do not know what good this money can do or they do not care what good this money can do. Either way, it is a terrible situation for this country.
Others have gone through the detail of the bill. I do not propose to go through every detail in the bill before us today—or even the amendment from the member for Sydney, which I support wholeheartedly—I will just boil it down to what this bill will mean. This bill will mean three things: fewer teachers, less one-on-one attention and more kids left behind. And each of those things is a tragedy for our country and for the kids of our country.
I am proud that the Leader of the Opposition stood at the dispatch box and, in his budget reply, recommitted to restoring every cent of the $22 billion that this Prime Minister and those opposite want to pull out of our schools. I am very proud of that. I am proud that we in the Labor Party will give kids in my electorate the opportunity to succeed and prosper. I am proud that we on this side of the House genuinely understand—not because we have been told it or told to say it—the transformational impact that school education can have in turbocharging opportunity and giving people the chance that they need in this country. I think if those opposite understood these things, if they felt them like we do, we would not have this $22 billion being pulled out of schools, we would not have had the $65 billion being given to big companies and we would have grasped this opportunity to finally get schools funding right, over the long term, for the sake of Australia kids and especially for the sake of communities like mine.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (18:34): I want to lend my voice to the issue here. It is quite clear that the government has no understanding of what the cuts to education if this bill were enacted will mean. It is really quite brazen of the government to consider that cutting $22,000 million from the education budget does not somehow come with adverse consequences. And it is also brazen of the government to pretend that they have somehow embraced needs-based schools funding and yet have been able to cut $22 billion from the budget over the next 10 years. As the member for Rankin and other speakers on this side have said, at the same time they have found $65,000 million to provide support in the form of tax cuts or tax giveaways to big business.
This bill is therefore not really something that is consistent with Labor's position. It never has been. There are grave concerns that the funding cuts will be devastating for schools throughout the country. It is quite remarkable. It may well be the case that some schools are not as affected as others, and indeed there are some electorates that are not as affected as others. I am really baffled that the National Party, led by the Deputy Prime Minister, can contemplate the cuts arising out of this legislation, given the devastation that will occur over the next decade for schools in those electorates that rely most on funding from the Commonwealth and rely most to ensure we lift the resource standard as required and as was outlined by Labor when last in government. It seems that the Nationals turn their back on their own constituency when they decide to support such savage cuts to schools in those electorates, particularly government schools.
The member for Scullin would have similar challenges to the ones I have. The cuts that will occur in my electorate in north-west Melbourne will also be devastating. It is really quite remarkable. This will be felt by every student in those government schools and indeed those Catholic schools in my electorate. I do not have category 1 schools in my electorate. I do not have high-fee-paying non-government schools in my electorate. But I do have government and non-government schools, and none of them are rich. Indeed, those parents who contribute to their children's learning beyond the taxes they pay for their education are not wealthy parents. Yet the cuts that would occur in the electorate of Gorton will be adverse to those kids.
Data from the Victorian education department shows that, over the next couple of years, schools in Gorton will be more than $15 million worse off. Indeed, several schools in Gorton will lose up to $1 million in funding over 2018 and 2019, with Copperfield College, as an example, set to be at least $1.8 million worse off. Copperfield College is not a rich school. It is a great school community, but it requires resources to make sure that the kids get an opportunity in life. As the member for Rankin and I am sure others have said in this debate, it is not just for those individual students but for this country.
We are in a knowledge based globalised economy where skills and knowledge will be the most important indicators as to whether or not a country prevails in terms of competition. It is fair to say that, whilst it has always been true that a country's most important resource is its people, I believe it is more the case now than it was some decades ago because of the nature of the global economy. Therefore, the idea that you disinvest, that you take money away from skills and education, where it is most keenly required, is bad policy. It is bad economic policy and bad social policy. We already know that Treasury's forecasts on the dividend for the $65 billion tax giveaway to big business is infinitesimal in the benefit that will arise: 0.1 per cent after 10 years of that cut taking place.
What we do know, without being able to quantify it precisely, is that the benefit to this nation from having a first-class education system, not in some schools but in all schools, will reap rewards for this nation—for the individual students involved who will be the beneficiaries of the investment and, more importantly, for this country in competing in a very competitive world. We have grave concerns about that. That is why I say that there are real equity issues here and real economic problems associated with the notion that you can just a rip away such a commitment that was made by a former federal government and, indeed, state governments, both coalition and Labor governments, to a project that was to say, 'We're going to lift the standards so that all students have access to quality education.'
I have mentioned the government schools. I am very concerned about those schools in my electorate, many of whom I have already made contact with. I would also like to touch on the Catholic Education Office, who have actually referred to me the cuts they believe will occur. They say that there will be some millions of dollars taken out in my electorate, which may well lead to fee increases. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Education and Training, and indeed the former education minister, the member for Sturt, have all said that the Catholics are lying about this. In fact, the member for Sturt says that the Catholic schools are simply pretending that they have been dudded. He went on to say that the Catholic education system is really running a very dishonest campaign. He went on to effectively attack their motives and their character for suggesting that was the case. Well, principals and teachers in Catholic schools in my electorate have told me that they are going to be under financial pressure. I know who I believe, when I have to listen to the front bench of the government or teachers who teach students in my electorate, as to which one is accurate in relation to the effects of the cuts that have been proposed by this government.
The same applies, of course, to the comments made by the Minister for Education and Training. They are very disappointing. I quote: '… to see some sectors are choosing to scare principals, teachers and parents with what appear to be absolute blatant falsehoods.' He goes on to say: 'I urge leaders in the Catholic school system to stop seeking special treatment and to embrace needs based funding for Australian schools.' Quite clearly, the views of the Catholic schools and the Turnbull government are at odds. I know which of them I am more likely to believe, and I know which of them the parents in my electorate are more likely to believe, because they will be the ones subject to the increase in fees because of the massive cuts that have been proposed under the legislation before us.
We have some fantastic schools in my electorate, but they are not category 1 schools. I have nothing against category 1 schools, but we do not have too many. We have no category 1 schools and we do not have people, in most instances, that would be able to afford the sort of fees that are associated with such schools. We do have very good schools and teachers, but they are under strain. They are under strain because of the lack of resources. We spent a lot of time working with the schools in investing in infrastructure during the global financial crisis. Many of those schools had portables instead of proper infrastructure, portables that were put in in the late 1970s and were not replaced by proper, permanent infrastructure. They now have interactive libraries where they had nothing before. They now have places where they can come together as a school in a way that they could not do before. That is an investment in infrastructure that says to the teachers, 'You matter as professionals.' More importantly, it says to the parents, 'Your children matter to government.'
With that investment at that time we sought to do two things: protect the interests of small businesses and jobs that might be lost during the global financial crisis, and put that money into education. That was the right decision both in a practical and symbolic sense. This is the opposite situation. We have a government who say they care about education, who say they understand the correlation between investing in education and economic growth, but do the opposite when it comes to taking money from an arrangement that was put in place between state governments and the former federal government. That is why Labor has said we will not support this proposition.
We think education is too important to each child but equally to this country. Therefore, we will be proposing that we ensure, if elected, that funding will be there for those public and government schools that do such a fine job but just need a bit more and, indeed, for those other schools that have been attacked by this government for being dishonest. I think that is just a really shabby way to treat the school community. I do believe the government should reconsider its position. It is letting down students, it is letting down parents, it is letting down teachers. Ultimately, as a result of these cuts, it will let down the country.
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (18:45): I rise to speak in favour of the amendment and against this bill, the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. No matter how many times the Prime Minister says the words 'fairness' and 'Gonski 2.0', it does not mean that he is delivering true needs-based funding in our schools. If he were delivering true needs-based funding in our schools, then Aldinga Beach B-7 School would not be getting a cut, Braeview School R-7 in my electorate would not be getting a cut, Christie Downs Primary School in my electorate would not be getting a cut, Christies Beach High School would not be getting a cut and Christies Beach Primary School would not be getting a cut. I could list the schools in my electorate. These are all public schools and all schools that service disadvantaged communities. There is $15 million worth of cuts in years 2018 and '19 alone from these schools that need this money to deliver an excellent education. So the Prime Minister can go around all he wants and talk about fairness, but unless he reinstates this funding to my schools in my electorate—these government schools that need this money to look after kids with a disability and kids from some of the most needy communities in the electorate—then he is not fair dinkum about needs-based funding, and we are calling him out on it.
Indeed, Labor went through an extensive process to work out the Schooling Resource Standard—one that would meet the needs of students to deliver an excellent education. Then it looked at who needed extra help—those with a disability, those from disadvantaged backgrounds, Aboriginal students, Indigenous students, those who did not have English as a first language, those that needed those extra resources. That is how the model was developed.
The government keeps talking about 27 different contracts. What the government fails to mention is that Labor was working with a very fragmented sector—different states, different territories, different school systems. We were working with them as a six-year plan to get them to the point where they all reached the Schooling Resource Standard. We were on track to do that. Then we had this government come in. What was the first thing that they did? The first thing that they did was to last make a $30 billion cut to our schools, despite saying, 'We're on a unity ticket. We'll match dollar for dollar.' I saw those posters at the last election in 2013. I saw those members get up and proudly say that when they felt threatened in their seats. The first thing they did was rip up that commitment—they ripped it up.
And then what did they do? The Prime Minister came into this parliament and said, 'We're going to just do a $22 billion cut.' Well, tell that to—and I will continue my list—Flaxmill School, to Hackham East Primary School, to Hackham West R-7 School. Once again, these are schools that are delivering high-quality education to some of the most disadvantaged in our country. I have met with these principals, and they know resources matter. I have met with so many school communities. They have said, 'If only we could have some extra support in our classrooms. If only we could have the extra technology and facilities in our classroom.' Hackham West R-7 School said that they wanted to have the money to open up some extra space for a sensory room, because they have a significant number of autistic children who need some time out and some specially designed space for them to feel comfortable. This is money being ripped out by this government.
The schools I have talked about are public schools, and we know that they are getting a $15 million cut over two years. But we also have many Catholic, Lutheran and independent schools delivering education to communities that do need extra support. This government has the gall to come in and tell those principals, those school communities, that they are well off and they deserve this cut—that they should be grateful for the scraps they are given. That is an outrageous attitude to take to our schools and our school communities. Parents and volunteers give up time to raise money for their schools and provide a few extra resources, and telling them that they should be grateful for this cut shows the attitude of those on the other side—they are so desperate, from poor polling, that they are trying to somehow convince people that they care about fairness, they care about their schools. That is absolutely not true. Our side of parliament will stick up for those schools, we will stick up for the school communities, we will stick up for those teachers who have great ideas but need the resources to implement them in the classroom. We will stick up for those governing councils and parents and friends committees that have really good ideas about how to make their school better, and we will stick up for those students who deserve the highest quality education to give them a better future than the future their parents had. We will stick up for those students and demand that the government reduce their $22 billion worth of cuts and sign up to a true needs based funding system, not some figment of the Prime Minister's imagination—a Prime Minister who thinks that using the words 'fairness' and 'Gonski 2.0' makes it fair. It does not. We will continue to make this point right up till the next election.
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (18:52): I rise to sum up the debate on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017, and I thank all honourable members for their contributions. This is a very important day in the history of Commonwealth school education policy, particularly in relation to the Australian government's funding arrangements. This legislation, though, is not just about the funding model—it is about making a fundamental shift in the way the Commonwealth will fund schools into the future. It is about delivering real policy reform, which the opposition has only talked about but itself never implemented. It is about delivering a new funding model based on the principles of affordability, need, fairness, equity and transparency. It is about delivering what the Turnbull government promised at the election last year in our Quality Schools, Quality Outcomes document, that the Commonwealth's record investment in schools must be tied to evidence based reforms to reverse Australia's sliding education performance. It is about delivering what the Gonski report actually proposed—replacing the messy 27 different funding arrangements, corrupted by special deals, trade-offs and a lack of transparency that marked the previous government model and about which we have heard nothing in this debate from the opposition.
This legislation delivers funding increases in real terms—an extra $18.6 billion extra over the 10 years from 2016-17, a total of $242.3 billion. It is about delivering year-on-year increases in Commonwealth funding—$17.5 billion in 2017 to $30.6 billion in 2027, a 75 per cent increase. This is real funding, not those fantasy figures that have been bandied around by the other side. This bill delivers an average annual increase for government schools of 5.1 per cent per student over the next decade, well above inflation and wages growth. At the same time, funding for the Catholic sector across Australia over the decade will increase by 3½ per cent, and by 4.1 per cent for the independent sector. It is therefore clear that in real terms the vast majority—indeed, the overwhelming majority—of school will see strong growth in funding.
Reflected in the legislation is that we are honouring our 2016 election promise to grow the funding standard by 3.56 per cent from 2018 to 2020, over the next three years. This gives immediate certainty of funding growth above any current measure of wages and inflation growth. From 2021 we will move to a floating indexation rate, and the bill will guarantee that funding keeps up with wages and inflation, with the added safeguard that it will not fall below three per cent. Our funding is sector blind and with its 10-year transition and enduring framework provides unprecedented certainty to schools. It provides for a proper transition period with assistance in place for schools that may need it. We are transitioning all schools to an equitable Commonwealth share of the Gonski based Schooling Resource Standard—80 per cent of that for non-government schools and 20 per cent for government schools, representing a historic high in federal support for all systems, especially for government school systems. This bill will see us move to a truly needs based approach that means that the same student with the same needs attracts the same amount of Commonwealth funding in each state, territory and school sector.
Schools will undertake this transition to a fairer system for all sectors and schools over a decade, unlike in the existing legislation we inherited from the previous government, which still would not achieve equity of treatment after 150 years. The honourable members will know that this bill allows for the use of the Nationally Consistent Collection of Data on School Students with Disability in calculating the students with disability loading. This means that for the first time we will be able to target funding for students who require different levels of assistance to support their access to and participation in learning. As a number of members on both sides of the House have noted, the bill introduces a requirement for states and territories to maintain their real per-student funding levels as a condition of this additional Commonwealth funding. This will prevent cost shifting to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth does not own or operate a single school, so it should not be the case that state and territory contributions to school funding decline while Commonwealth funding grows.
I particularly want to thank the member for Berowra and other members on this side of the House for reminding those opposite that Mr Gonski has agreed to undertake a review to provide advice on how the extra Commonwealth funding should be invested to improve Australian schools' performance and grow student achievement. The recommendations of this review will inform a new national agreement on school education, which will set out evidence based reforms for national implementation and a revised national performance framework. I therefore want to thank all members who participated in the debate, and I thank the House for the support of this important legislation, which I commend to the House.
The SPEAKER: Order! The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable Deputy Leader of the Opposition has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
The House divided [19:02]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (19:09): The question is that bill be now read a second time
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
The House divided. [19:09]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Third Reading
The SPEAKER (19:16): Is leave granted for the third reading to be moved immediately?
Leave not granted.
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Human Services) (19:16): I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay.
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (19:16): Mr Speaker, how can this be fair? How can it be needs based when the Northern Territory—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney will resume her seat. The minister has the call.
Mr TUDGE: I move:
That the question be now put.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the question be now put.
The House divided. [19:17]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (19:21): The question now is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to.
The House divided. [19:21]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Human Services) (19:24): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (19:24): This bill guarantees a $22 billion cut—
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Human Services) (19:24): I move:
That the motion be now put.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be now put.
The House divided. [19:25]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER (19:31): It being just after 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Shortland Electorate: Mining
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (19:31): I am proud to represent the Hunter region, a region built on coal. Coal was discovered in Newcastle in 1797 and the first export coal in 1799, somewhat ironically given the Adani debate, was shipped to India. Each year, along with most local elected representatives I attend the Miners Memorial Day, which commemorates the 1,800 workers who have lost their lives in the northern minefields. Ages on that memorial range from a tragic 11 to 76. My neighbours are coalminers. My kids go to child care alongside the children of coalminers. My local footy club is run by coalminers and sponsored by coal companies. It is in this context that I state categorically and without any exaggeration that the coalition government has declared war on the 18,000 Hunter coalminers and the communities that depend upon those jobs.
When one looks beyond the patronising and hollow rhetoric of this government and looks at its actions, one can only conclude that this government has absolutely zero concern for the miners of my region. Nothing highlights this attitude more than the proposed $1 billion subsidy to the Adani Carmichael mine in Central Queensland and the proposed government loan to start a massive coalmine in South Africa. On the latter, this government, through the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, is considering a loan to develop a gigantic coalmine in South Africa. This project will compete directly against Australian coalmines. The government will claim that Australia may win some exports of mining equipment, but experience has demonstrated that most of these exports do not eventuate. What will definitely happen is that the coalmine will suppress the international price for thermal coal and this subsidised coal will threaten the livelihood of coalminers I represent.
I now turn to an even greater threat to Hunter coalminers, and that is the Adani Carmichael mine and this government's reckless support for it. Most industry experts agree that this project is a direct threat to existing coalminers. Why is this? It is because official figures from the International Energy Agency, which are always optimistic in terms of the future of coal, concede that coal consumption globally peaked in 2013 and has declined every year since. Chinese coal consumption has fallen by 3.4 per cent; Indian coal imports declined in 2015 and are on track to decline again in 2016; and seaborne thermal coal peaked in 2013 and has fallen by nearly six per cent again.
The truth is that, as the international coal market is declining, any increase in supply will, by definition, reduce the international coal price and lower the volume of coal exported from Australia's other coal ports. In essence, the coalition government is planning on providing a $1 billion subsidy to lower the price of coal and reduce coal exports from Newcastle. This threatens the jobs of 18,000 Hunter coalminers—and for what? Adani have stated in court that their project will create only 1,400 jobs. I acknowledge that these jobs are important to Central Queensland, but why should the federal government threaten the livelihood of Hunter coalminers to secure these jobs?
Beyond falsifying the state of the international coal market, the minister for resources argues that Adani should be subsidised because the Hunter and Bowen coalmines benefited from previous Commonwealth infrastructure investment. This ignores two important facts. Firstly, this investment was in the context of growing international demand for coal. This infrastructure investment did not threaten the existing coalmines. Secondly, it ignores the centuries of wealth these coal regions generated before that investment occurred. The 1961 Commonwealth investment in Newcastle port was made after the region had mined coal for 162 years. It was not a downpayment on future economic activity but a partial repayment of all the wealth generated by the Hunter coalminers over many generations.
The coalition government is asking Australians to ignore all these actions and just focus on the rhetoric—rhetoric characterised by immature and unsubstantiated statements by ministers who debase themselves and their positions, a Treasurer handing out a lump of coal in this nation's parliament as a cheap gimmick, a resources minister who was born in Brisbane, worked as a Productivity Commission economist and lived for a couple of years in a coal region and now claims to be the best friend of coalminers, and, most disgracefully of all, the Deputy Prime Minister, a former accountant educated at the $40,000-a-year private school St Ignatius' College at Riverview, bellowing that Labor MPs hate blue-collar workers. This is utter rubbish. My coalminers and the rest of Australia deserve better.
Central Coast: Environment
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (19:36): The Central Coast is one of the most beautiful places to live and work, and one of the many reasons that families love our region is our incredible local environment. Whether it is our beautiful beaches Macmasters Beach, Killcare or Terrigal, or picturesque national parks like Bouddi, our local environment is a big part of what makes the Central Coast such an amazing place to call home.
I recently had the chance to meet Milo the koala while at Kariong. Milo, who lives at the Australian Reptile Park, is an important reminder of how precious our koalas are but also how rare they have become on the Central Coast. Local environment advocate Jake Cassar joined us near Bambara Road at Kariong to discuss fears of a threat to the local koala population. Recent reports suggest that the koala population in our region is under threat. The Minister for the Environment and Energy has advised me that the Australian government is working closely with state and territory partners to prepare a recovery plan for the nationally listed koala population of New South Wales.
After meeting Milo and chatting with Jake Cassar, I also wrote to the newly appointed Threatened Species Commissioner to find what more can be done to assist koala populations on the Central Coast. Since the appointment of the Threatened Species Commissioner in June 2014, the government has mobilised more than $211 million for projects that support and protect our threatened species. This includes the Threatened Species Recovery Fund, recently launched by the Minister for the Environment and Energy. The fund will help bring government and the community together to support threatened and endangered native species. I actively encourage local community organisations to apply for the grant to support projects that align with the targets and objectives of the Threatened Species Strategy. Applications are open until 15 June, with more information available online at the National Landcare Program website.
Across Australia there are also a number of Green Army projects making a real difference to the environment and delivering positive outcomes for participants and their local communities. I am pleased to say that we are delivering on our election commitments for the first of three Green Army projects set to start within the next few weeks. The project will identify, survey and monitor the green and golden bell frog populations at Avoca Lagoon and Davistown as well as undertake restoration action to improve the local habitat. I am really looking forward to meeting members of the Green Army groups in the coming weeks as they take on this important work.
It is not just the Green Army projects that are supporting the local environment on the Central Coast. Our $2.2 million Local Environment Plan for Robertson, announced during the recent 2016 federal election, is one of the most comprehensive environment strategies the Central Coast has seen. The plan is delivering a major boost to surf lifesaving clubs through the Solar Communities program. It is also helping the outstanding Graham 'Jono' Johnston and his team at Clean4shore continue to keep our beaches and our waterways clean. As well as these projects, it is helping to deliver a long-awaited boardwalk at Springfield. The boardwalk has been a dream of Chertsey Primary School and many local residents for years. To be constructed between Willow Road and Balfour Close, the Springfield Residents Association says it will enhance the area and provide a safe walkway for local students and families while also protecting local flora and fauna. This project, an important projects, is already moving forward, with the Central Coast Council having released initial concept designs earlier this year and local residents able to share their thoughts on the proposed design.
Finally, our local environment plan for Robertson is set to kick-start stage 1 of the upgrade to the very important 5 Lands Walk, which will include a steel bridge and vital improvements to this track. The 5 Lands walk has become a staple on the Central Coast calendar. The walk connects us to the land, celebrating our Indigenous heritage and multicultural community. The 10-kilometre route follows the coastline through the five lands, from McMasters Beach to Copacabana, Avoca Beach, North Avoca through to Terrigal Beach. Tens of thousands of visitors and residents take part in the walk, with the event growing more and more each year.
The popularity of the event means that upgrades to the track need to take place. I am very pleased that this government's commitment to our local environment will kick-start stage 1 of the walk's upgrade. I am looking forward to attending the walk once again on 24 June, and I certainly encourage local families to join. I know that a few seasons ago we were actually able to spot whales along our local beaches as we were on the walk. It really is an incredible sight to behold.
May I also pay tribute to Con Ryan and the whole team who are involved in the 5 Lands Walk, as well as the hundreds of volunteers who make this event possible year after year.
Western Sydney Airport
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (19:41): Last Friday the curtain was raised on the facade of one of the great examples of showtime consultation—the Forum on Western Sydney Airport, or FOWSA. This is a Turnbull government forum dressed up as an effort to demonstrate meaningful community consultation about Badgerys Creek airport, a facility that will be twice the size of Sydney Airport but which, unlike Sydney Airport, will run 24 hours a day, seven days a week. There will be no curfew, no flight caps and no protection for Western Sydney residents—relegated yet again as second-class citizens in their home city.
They were ambushed by the sudden announcement from the coalition of the construction of this airport in its first year of office—a $10 billion airport, with an EIS whose consultation process involved asking people what they thought of the plans by inviting them to forums held right before Christmas during work times. But this was not to minimise the number of residents who were able to give their views about this 24/7 airport, surely? No—that is all coincidence. We got the glitz and supposed good news beaming off the front page of The Daily Telegraph, while all the detail and downside was buried and glossed over.
Talk of coincidence brings me back to FOWSA. Surely it is a coincidence that FOWSA contains hardly any critics of the airport? It is jam packed with cheerleaders—people wanting the airport. A consultation forum like this should not be a backslapping platform for those who cheered this development on and who just want to rubberstamp all the development decisions. Besides, those cheerleaders are making money from that decision already—like the Western Sydney Leadership Dialogue, whose conferences are big money-spinners. The dialogue is chaired by Chris Brown, a person who lives a stone's throw from Balmain and nautical mile after nautical mile away from Badgerys Creek.
One of the patrons of this organisation—an organisation that has lobbied for Badgerys Creek—is Peter Shergold, who just coincidentally is the chair of FOWSA. People might say that I am being unfair and that Peter is the chancellor of Western Sydney university. Good! Does he actually live in Western Sydney? I do not know. I do not think so, but I am happy to stand corrected.
People might say, 'Well, it would be good for someone outside the region to chair FOWSA,' that they might be dispassionate. Really? Could you imagine a Western Sydney resident ever the chairing the Sydney Airport Community Forum? Not in a million years! What a rort by the Turnbull government! This is what FOWSA really is: FOWSA is about faux consultation. Thankfully, the members for Werriwa and Macarthur can provide some balance, but they are stuck on a forum where genuine concerns will be drowned out by the cult-like chants of supporters used to stack out this committee. There is little balance—too few alternative voices. Community voices, like Peter Dolan from RAWSA, or John Rickard from the Blue Mountains Conservation Society, or Andrea Grieve, or the mayor of the largest council in New South Wales, Councillor Stephen Bali of Blacktown council, are excluded from FOWSA. Why? How? The member for Macquarie is excluded. The member for Lindsay is excluded. Senator Payne is on FOWSA, but the membership is now not open to Senator Cameron. There are only four MPs from Western Sydney on FOWSA; more than 10 sit on the Sydney Airport Community Forum. We have four MPs, for an airport that will be twice the size of Sydney Airport, but the Sydney Airport Community Forum gets more than 10 MPs sitting on there—including, I might add, the Minister for Urban Infrastructure, a person who complains about noise from Sydney Airport, which is nearly 40 kilometres from his electorate, while telling Western Sydney we have to accept 24-hour operations. Flight free over Kirribilli, but 3 am flights over Fairfield—what hypocrisy!
Have you noticed that, when it comes to the noise impact of this airport, it is a tiny airport, but, when it comes to the job impact, it is massive! What is clear is this: this government cannot tell you the exact percentage of jobs that will go to Western Sydney residents—because they do not have one. There are 3,000 jobs in construction and 9,000 jobs in running it. There is no guaranteed target for these 12,000 jobs that are reserved exclusively for Western Sydney's two million residents. The Turnbull government, in their briefing with my fellow MPs and I last week, could not reveal the number, the percentage of jobs reserved for Western Sydney residents, that was put to Sydney Airport in the failed negotiations about Badgerys Creek—because they do not have one. The Turnbull government dangles the prospect of jobs at Badgerys Creek like a hypnotist watch, but when you ask for detail they shrink away. They cannot today, right now, tell you the guaranteed percentage of jobs for Western Sydney now that they are spending $10 billion in taxpayer dollars on building this airport. We deserve fair dinkum investment in infrastructure, better roads, better public transport, better schools and better hospitals. We should not be subjected to showmanship by a Prime Minister who will never be held accountable for dodgy decisions.
Fisher Electorate: Defence Industry
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (19:46): The federal government is spending $200 billion on defence industry capability over the next 10 years. In every branch of our nation's armed forces we are acquiring new equipment and expanding our defence capacity. I want to see some of that $200 billion spent on the Sunshine Coast. We have RAAF Base Amberley not far away from us in Fisher. We have an underutilised aerodrome in Caloundra and vacant industrial property. Most importantly, we have the human resources. A great many retired Defence personnel choose the Sunshine Coast for their home—and, let's face it, why wouldn't they?—while our USC innovation hub is drawing more and more technological innovators to our community.
I want to see a Sunshine Coast that is no longer dependent on tourism, building and construction. If we want to be able to ride out our future economic storms, we need to get more industries operating in our community. We need to diversify. Defence industry is highly paid, highly skilled and the Sunshine Coast is the perfect place for it. That is why, in May, I organised the inaugural Fisher defence industry forum. I invited the Minister for Defence Industry to come along, with representatives of the Centre for Defence Industry Capability and the Defence Science and Technology Group. They spoke to attendees about what local companies can do to get a start in winning Defence contracts, and what work is available. I also invited prime defence contractors such as Airbus, Boeing and Lockheed Martin to meet our local businesses and tell them about what they are looking for in a subcontractor. Finally, local small businesses who have won Defence contracts spoke about what they did to break into the sector. More than 170 local businesses registered to attend, and I am delighted to say that the innovation centre at the University of the Sunshine Coast was packed on that day.
As we heard, there are businesses in Fisher who are already taking advantage of these opportunities. We have a fantastic company in Caloundra, HeliMods, who employ 25 skilled workers on the Sunshine Coast. I visited Will Shrapnel and the team there, with the minister, to see their manufacturing facilities. HeliMods' story is an example to all businesses in any market. It was not easy to get their first Defence contract. It took vision to see the opportunities, it took flexibility and ingenuity to meet ADF requirements and specifications and it took perseverance. This was not their first attempt, but now HeliMods has a contract for $154,000 to deliver wet decks for 14 Navy helicopters. Yes, that is a modest sum in the broader scheme of things, but it is an important first step for their business.
The minister and I sat with Will inside the main cabin of a rescue helicopter in the Caloundra Aerodrome and listened to him speak with passion about the potential that HeliMods has for more contracts. I hope that that is just the beginning for them.
Bigger contracts are available to the Sunshine Coast businesses with the right capabilities or an innovative idea. We have another company in the same area, Praesidium Global, who have recently won a $1.3 million contract to design and manufacture a new type of unmanned ground vehicle. David Baird, General Manager of Praesidium, says: 'The purpose of these vehicles is to reduce a soldier's exposure to danger. Instead of sending personnel in, we can send a robot in.' These UGVs are in the developmental stage at the moment and will undergo further evaluations.
What we are seeing now is the tip of the iceberg in terms of what we can provide. These are the sorts of success stories that I want to see on the Sunshine Coast. We are on the cusp of something huge.
I want to thank the Minister for Defence Industry for coming along to our forum and speaking to businesses in Fisher. I also thank CDIC and DST Group; Mark Cook from NIOA; Andrew Sanderson from TAE and Will Shrapnel from HeliMods for presenting. I also want to thank the many prime contractors who attended.
I intend to hold defence industry forums on the coast in the future. In the short term, I will be hosting a series of defence industry breakfasts to maintain the momentum and keep us moving forward. I hope the local businesses will look out for these events in the future because I am very excited about what we can offer here in Fisher.
Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility
Mr SWAN (Lilley) (19:51): In March I referred the governance and operations of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility to the Auditor-General for his consideration, and I am pleased to note that he has now placed it on his future work agenda. The NAIF provides no security for the $5 billion appropriated to it and, as it is currently structured, the NAIF represents an opportunity for a domineering minister to allocate billions of dollars without any checks or balances. The board has a limited role, and the minister is the sole approving authority and can operate in complete secrecy.
In March, I compared the NAIF's governance policies with those of the CEFC, which are the gold standard of government finance bodies. In comparison, the NAIF looks as dodgy as Lehman Brothers—and of course we all know how that ended.
Minister Canavan should not be subsidising billionaire friends of the Queensland National Party. Kerry Packer once said: 'You only get one Alan Bond.' Mr Adani knows he is going to get one Matt Canavan.
Compare the investment mandates: the CEFC must operate with a portfolio benchmark return of the five-year Australian government bond rate plus three or four per cent per annum over the medium to the long term. The NAIF does not have a requirement for a positive return. The board only needs to believe that the government can be repaid or the investment can be refinanced. That is incredibly risky.
There is one significant difference between the NAIF and other large government corporations like the CEFC, Efic, ARTC and NBN that handle billions of dollars of taxpayers' funds, and that difference is this: there is no formal or statutory role for the finance minister with the NAIF—a body which controls $5 billion—and no finance minister whose job it is to look after the taxpayer. The role of a finance minister and his department is to protect taxpayers' money, to ensure its allocation and spending are properly and effectively controlled, and to ensure that these processes are not corrupted by individuals or corporations.
Even Tony Abbott would not have Barnaby Joyce as finance minister—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lilley will refer to members by their correct titles.
Mr SWAN: Even the former Prime Minister would not have Barnaby Joyce as finance minister. But when the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, had to pay Barnaby Joyce's $5 billion—
The SPEAKER: No, the member for Lilley will refer to members by their correct titles.
Mr SWAN: The Deputy Prime Minister—okay, I will start again. Mr Speaker, even the former Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, would not have Barnaby Joyce as his finance minister.
The SPEAKER: No, the member for Lilley will refer to members by their correct titles. I have made this point to the House on numerous occasions. If he can't do it, he will resume his seat and I will move—
Mr SWAN: I have referred to them by their correct titles—
The SPEAKER: You have not. You have not referred to the Deputy Prime Minister—
Mr SWAN: 'Even the former Prime Minister, Mr Abbott'—
The SPEAKER: No, the member for Lilley will refer to members by their correct titles.
Mr SWAN: I have: 'the former Prime Minister, Mr Abbott'—
The SPEAKER: Yes, and then it is the next sentence that is the problem.
Mr SWAN: is that sufficient?
The SPEAKER: No, it is the next sentence that is the problem.
Mr SWAN: And the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Joyce—
The SPEAKER: I thank the member for Lilley.
Mr SWAN: but when the current Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, has to pay Mr Joyce's $5 billion—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lilley will resume his seat. You did not refer to the member by his correct title. I asked the member for Lilley three times to refer to members by their correct titles, including the member for Warringah and the Deputy Prime Minister. On three occasions he did not. I now give the call to the member for Lilley. If he does not call members by their correct titles he will lose the call, as in fact the Deputy Prime Minister himself has during question time.
Mr SWAN: It is unprecedented for an individual minister to oversee the board of a government corporation without the Minister for Finance. It is unprecedented to set the investment mandate, which is a non-disallowable instrument, meaning the parliament cannot review it. It is even more disturbing if the minister's extraordinary and inappropriate powers over the board and the CEO are used. The absence of the finance minister undermines claims that the board has behaved appropriately in the face of very significant risk. Minister Canavan and Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce insist that NAIF is an independent body that will make its own decisions, but since December they have been running around my state of Queensland and around the country taking every opportunity to promote a $1 billion subsidised loan from this supposedly independent body for their favourite project. If the NAIF was really independent it would push back against this political interference. Contrast with the CEFC, which this government has tried to shut down because the CEFC has pushed back. Improving the structure of the NAIF is urgent to stop this National Party boondoggle.
Cashless Debit Card
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (19:56): I rise tonight to share my personal journey to being a strong supporter of a cashless welfare card trial in my electorate of O'Connor. As many would already be aware, the Minister for Human Services, Alan Tudge, came to the Western Australian goldfields with me a couple of weeks ago. It is great to see the minister here tonight to hear my contribution. We were there to discuss a regional trial of a cashless welfare card and gauge the level of community support for the program. My story starts in November 2015. I was at an end-of-year school presentation in Leonora, a small town in the northern goldfields with a population of only a few hundred. The community was reeling from a spate of suicides. Two teenagers had taken their lives in the previous week. To lose one life so young is a tragedy; this was developing into a catastrophe.
While I was in town, I was approached by an Aboriginal woman, Gaye Harris, who is affectionately known in the local community as 'Nana Gaye'. She told me that social issues in Leonora had reached crisis point and something needed to change. Nana Gaye pleaded with me for help, and I suggested that we have a trial of the cashless welfare card. I stressed that I did not think this trial would be a silver bullet, but had the potential to make a difference. I also made it clear that this was a policy that the government would not introduce without the majority support of the community. I promise Nana Gaye I would return to Leonora as soon as possible.
Within weeks I returned to Leonora with Minister Tudge. We met with the community, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, and talked about the card. Then we listened. Not everybody in town was in favour of the trial, but a majority of people supported a change in the way that welfare dollars were being spent by the community. Our initial hope was to introduce a trial across the shires of Laverton and Leonora. The support was there and the need was clear. But our efforts were frustrated by the 2016 election, which put any further developments on hold. The minister suggested we wait for more evidence from the first two trial sites before expanding the program. While I was disappointed by the delay, he made the right call. We have now reached the point where we have seen positive signs from the trials at Ceduna and the East Kimberley. Binge drinking is down, gambling is down, drug use is down. Retailers say that more money is being spent on food and clothing. Admissions to the sobering up unit in Wyndham have fallen dramatically. The Mayor of Ceduna says that the town has never been so quiet.
For some opponents of this program these results are not enough. They say that government has no rights to manage people's income. They say we need to find other solutions to these complex issues, but I am still waiting to hear what those other solutions might be. Let me say this: it is easy to some people to criticise from a distance and say that this card is an infringement of people's rights. I challenge those people to visit places like Leonora and Laverton and experience the grief and despair for themselves.
A police officer from Leonora told me a story last week. Officers responded to a burglary at a house in the town, but nothing of value had been taken. Money, alcohol and jewellery were all left untouched. All that was missing was food from the refrigerator. In the gravel outside the house, there were tiny footprints leading to and from the property. A hungry child had snuck in just to steal food. Police say children wander the streets of Leonora at night begging for money or for food. A single parent with three children receives a payment of $1,500 per fortnight. The idea that this money could be spent within days on drugs, alcohol and gambling while children go hungry is abhorrent. We have a responsibility to protect those children. Even with the cashless welfare card, that parent would still have access to $300 of cash per fortnight.
Minister Tudge and I listened to an extraordinary, powerful cry for help from Janice Scott, an Aboriginal woman from Laverton. She asked how to combat the notion that opposing the card was a matter of human rights. These were her words: 'There are no human rights. Our children have no rights. They have no future. Our people are dying. We need this card. We need to try something now.' I cannot stand by in all conscience and watch an entire generation of people become lost forever. We have to try something. The cashless welfare card is no silver bullet, but it is a chance to fix a broken welfare system that is failing some Australians. To do nothing is to condemn an entire generation to a life of poverty and despair. I will stand with Janice Scott and Gaye Harris to help them heal their people. The message I heard loud and clear from the communities of the Northern Goldfields was: 'We've had enough information. We've had enough consultation. We need to get on and do this now.' Thank you.
The SPEAKER: It being past 8 pm, the House stands adjourned until 12 pm tomorrow.
House adjourned at 20 : 01
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Ms Rishworth to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that the Australian Medical Association's survey highlights that the freeze of the Repatriation Medical Fee Schedule (RMFS) is leading to some healthcare professionals no longer accepting Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) clients;
(2) recognises the negative impact that the DVA RMFS freeze has had on veterans accessing specialist medical care;
(3) notes that the Australian Institute for Suicide Research Prevention, the Australian Psychological Society and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists have raised the negative impact that the freeze is having on veterans accessing skilled clinicians;
(4) expresses concern that some mental health and allied health services are not accepting veterans into their service as a result of the indexation freeze; and
(5) calls on the Government to immediately drop the RMFS indexation freeze, which is significantly impacting on veterans' access to mental health and specialist medical services.
Mr Burke to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) music fans are missing out on tickets because bots have bought up tickets in bulk and these tickets are being on-sold at inflated prices;
(b) music fans are also having to endure the disappointment and the loss of missing out on seeing live music through no fault of their own but because websites like Viagogo allow the selling of fake tickets and tickets that have been sold multiple times over;
(c) major search engines are profiting from advertising these websites and the tickets sold on these websites at the top of search results; and
(d) the loss felt by many people is not simply the loss of an experience but a substantial loss of money for what can be one of their biggest discretionary purchases of the year; and
(2) calls on the Government to explain the action being taken to ensure that if someone buys a ticket to live music, they know they can turn up and get entry to the music they love.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ) took the chair at 10:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Donnelly, Mr Bob
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (10:30): It is my sad duty to inform the House of the passing away of Bob Donnelly last week on 24 May 2017. I would like to send my condolences to Robyn and his son, Chad. Of course, it was a very sad day for the South Australian labour movement, because Bob, from the time he joined the Electrical Trades Union in 1968, when he first went to work for ETSA, until 24 May, had been a great fighter for workers and the broader labour movement across South Australia. He held every position in the union. He was a shop steward at ETSA. He was a long-serving member, a state councillor, an executive member, an organiser, a branch assistant secretary, a branch secretary, a delegate to divisional council, a divisional president and a CEPU national councillor. He really did epitomise, I think, the character of the union as a member-driven organisation, one that was strongly focused on the interests of electricians and plumbers across the state and particularly in the power industry.
Bob had a great deal of wisdom and experience that he could share with people like me when we were talking about the power industry or other things, particularly the power crisis we have had. Bob always was there with, I think, a sage word and with sensible feedback on what we do in places like the South Australian parliament and the federal parliament. He was obviously a big supporter of mine, and I was really grateful for that support and for his contribution more generally to the labour movement. I guess his involvement in the union was in part guided by his great friendship and mateship with Bob Geraghty, who also, sadly, was taken by cancer and also was a secretary of the CEPU.
It is very, very hard to replace men like Bob Donnelly. They are great fighters for their class, for their community, for their family and for the broader labour movement. We can only express our sadness at his passing and our admiration at his long fight against cancer, defying the odds for so long. We know that this world is a worse place for his passing, and we extend our condolences to his wife and his son and to the broader community that is the Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union.
Hume Electorate: Community Events
Hume Electorate: Budget
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation) (10:33): May is the month of Granny Smiths, butternuts and sebagos in Hume. It is when the southern part of my electorate celebrates truly unique annual events that draw thousands of visitors from everywhere. Apple Day at Tallong saw furious competition in the great bake-off and apple-pie-eating events. The small village, just north of Goulburn, only has a population of 700, yet the 12th Apple Day pulled over 5,000 people, a record. It was a corker of an event by the innovative organising committee, led superbly by Chrissie Wursten.
On the same day, Collector, just up the road from here, staged its 14th world-famous Collector Village Pumpkin Festival. The crowds were big, almost 15,000. Traffic was banked up on the Federal Highway. But the hordes were never going to go hungry, not while ACT local Rick Downes keeps growing his giants. He won the Joe Medway Memorial Heaviest Pumpkin competition with a monster of 109.5 kilograms. Gary Poile and his group do an amazing job of putting the festival together. Let us not forget that Collector has a population of maybe 400 yet manages to entice enough pumpkin pilgrims to fill a footy stadium.
Out at Crookwell they staged the Potato Festival, which celebrates more than a century and a half of growing spuds high in the Southern Tablelands. Now in its seventh year, it is one of the most anticipated community events on the Upper Lachlan Shire Council. More than 2,000 people came this year, jumping aboard the spud bus at various locations across the township. There were 45 entries for the decorated potato competition, and dozens of local students entered the junior Australian poetry competition, which I supported. Well done to overall winners Emily Lamb and Jarion Long. I know chair of the organising committee, Joyce Edwards, and her fellow volunteers toil hard to showcase Crookwell and its significant potato growing heritage. Importantly, it gives local growers like those represented by the Crookwell Potato Association an opportunity to talk to locals and visitors about the industry.
The good people of Hume are hard workers, and it is only fair that the coalition's budget is working hard for them through tax breaks for small businesses, more affordable and accessible child care, and a fairer needs-based schools funding system. I am also pleased that the coalition's record investment in rural and regional telecommunications is connecting together Hume's communities, like in Golspie, where the mobile black spot tower has just been switched on, and in Bundanoon in Wingello, where NBN towers are servicing 550 premises.
James, Mr Ray and Mrs Pauline
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (10:36): It is my pleasure to rise today to speak of one of the most hardworking and community minded couples in my electorate of Macarthur, Ray—also known as Jesse—and Pauline James. Ray served in the Royal Australian Navy for over 20 years from 1965 to 1985, including several tours in Vietnam during the Vietnam War. Then he spent 20 years working in the New South Wales Police Force. He has been a longstanding member of the Returned and Services League, and he is now president of the Ingleburn RSL. He is also president of the Macarthur branch of the Vietnam Veterans Association. Ray has just been elected vice-president of the New South Wales RSL and is part of the new broom changing the RSL for the better. Pauline has also just been elected as the president of the women's auxiliary of the New South Wales RSL.
Both Ray and Pauline have been tireless workers for my community's good for many years. As well as raising their two children in Macarthur, Ray and Pauline have been tireless advocates for Macarthur and longstanding supports for me. They have strongly supported our veterans community and have consistently looked for ways to address the issues affecting Vietnam veterans in particular. They are concerned about the high rates of mental illness, suicide and homelessness in veterans, particularly amongst our Vietnam veterans, and they have sought ways through state and federal parliament and local councils to help our Vietnam veterans and other veterans. They are passionate, compassionate people who lead by example and have done everything they can to support our community. They lead the dawn service on Anzac Day every year at Ingleburn RSL and have been very diligent in involving our local schools and our local young people.
I know the future of the RSL is in good hands with the help of Ray and Pauline and their leadership. I am very grateful for everything they have done and I really look forward to helping them promote the needs of our veterans in the future. Last year on Remembrance Day they also helped organise a celebration of the life of Kevin 'Dasher' Wheatley, Macarthur's VC winner from the Vietnam War, and I know this was very comforting for the family. Ray and Pauline had a longstanding friendship with Gough Whitlam, and some years ago they introduced me to him. Gough clearly respected them and respected the support they had given our community. Ray and Pauline are tireless workers for veterans and for the RSL. I see a very positive future for the RSL, and I look forward to helping them and the RSL with the great community work they do in the Macarthur area through the Camden, Campbelltown and Ingleburn RSL clubs.
Bonner Electorate: Roads
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (10:39): Today I have some very good news for commuters in my electorate. I have recently received updates from the Minister for Urban Infrastructure and from the Department of Transport and Main Roads regarding the Gateway Motorway merge upgrade at Eight Mile Plains. This is one of many vital upgrades of the M1 taking place under the Queensland roads package deal reached by the Australian government earlier this year.
The M1 is of course notorious for its peak-hour traffic. The southbound lanes of the M1 between Eight Mile Plains and Rochedale in particular are plagued by congestion during the afternoon peak hours. I and the state member for Mansfield, Mr Ian Walker, have regularly heard from constituents about how traffic in these lanes now starts to back up as early as 2 pm and does not ease until as late as 6 pm. We have been pushing for an upgrade on their behalf, so we are thrilled that work to widen the M1 at the Gateway Motorway merge past the Rochedale Road off ramp will begin later this year. More specifically, the upgrade will include up to five southbound lanes on the M1 between Eight Mile Plains and Rochedale, the relocation of the existing bus entry from Eight Mile Plains bus station onto the M1, a replacement four-lane overpass on a realigned Underwood Road, and managed motorway technologies from Klumpp Road to Rochedale Road.
This upgrade is a major win for commuters who use this part of the M1 on a daily basis. They will enjoy improved traffic flow, reduced traffic times as well as improved safety. The Department of Transport and Main Roads is currently finalising the design of the upgrade. It has also contacted landowners impacted by the upgrade and will deal with them directly on a case-by-case basis. Early works on the project are expected to commence later this year, with major construction to begin following the 2018 Gold Coast Commonwealth Games. I cannot wait to see this much-needed project completed. I encourage residents and motorists with more questions about the upgrade to contact my office for further information or visit the Department of Transport and Main Roads's website.
Cockburn Aquatic and Recreation Centre
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (10:41): Friday before last I attended the launch of the Cockburn Aquatic and Recreation Centre, or ARC, a comprehensive sports and health facility right in the heart of the fastest-growing section of the Fremantle electorate. It is beautifully designed, both in form and function. I know it will make a huge difference as a focal point for community building, youth engagement and preventative health. Put simply, the ARC will improve the quality of life for people in my electorate.
The project was first secured with a commitment of $10 million from the federal Labor government, announced by Prime Minister Julia Gillard in June 2013. Now, four years later, it is a reality and the centre's pools, gyms, ovals and hard courts will serve a catchment of more than 200,000 residents in the south metro region. It joins a suite of Labor supported community assets in the vibrant hub that is Cockburn Central, a precinct whose emergence began with the visionary Perth-Mandurah rail line and whose evolution was kickstarted with a Liveable Cities grant from the Labor government in 2012.
Cockburn Central was born out of a partnership between a local government that could see the great merit in developing a high-quality transport-oriented strategic centre and a federal Labor government that understood the importance of smart community infrastructure. Under Labor's GP super clinic program, core health services were provided in the form of the Cockburn integrated health and community facility and, under Labor's social housing initiative, the Living Space development created an innovative combination of social housing, shared equity dwellings and private apartments.
All these pieces of the mosaic have come together in a relatively short time. It is not surprising that there have been some growing pains or challenges along the way, especially with regard to local traffic. In response to these congestion issues, the WA Labor government and local federal members like me and the member for Burt have worked to secure funding to build the North Lake Road bridge, widen the freeway northbound from Russell Road and build the Thornlie to Cockburn rail connection in the time ahead.
While the Abbott-Turnbull government has largely abandoned the fight against climate change, I am heartened by the way local communities and their local governments are doing what they can to shoulder this critical work. The Cockburn ARC includes what I understand to be the largest roof-mounted solar array in Australia, comprising more than 3,800 panels as part of a one-megawatt system. It will achieve yearly savings of $300,000 in power costs and it will offset 1,170 tonnes of carbon dioxide each year. What is more, the ARC's seven swimming pools will be heated by a 1.2 kilometre geothermal bore. Last but not least, the ARC is the new training ground headquarters for the mighty Fremantle Dockers, whose descent into the dreaded rebuilding phase has been greatly exaggerated.
The ARC is a triumph. I want to acknowledge and pay tribute to the vision, hard work, courage and persistence of the City of Cockburn, its Mayor Logan Howlett, and its council and officers, who together have brought this remarkable project to fruition.
Forde Electorate: Eats & Beats
Forde Electorate: Beenleigh Town Square
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (10:44): At a time when communities across Australia and indeed across the world need spirits lifted, I would like to reflect on the great success of a regular event in my electorate which is fast becoming a local phenomenon, the Eats & Beats food truck festival. This event, organised by Logan City Council, is held each month in the city of Logan, with local food truck vendors and musicians working together to put on a terrific night of festivity and entertainment. Thousands of people attend this event each time it is held, and, every time, those thousands come away with a true sense of wonder about the community they live in. It has truly become a must-do event for our families, and it is something that young and old alike can enjoy.
On Friday night, the festival arrived in the Beenleigh Town Square, and yet again it was a time to remember. For many of my constituents in the area it was an important chance to unwind and relax following the massive flood clean-up efforts, which are still dominating our local agenda. Events like this are so crucial where community spirits are concerned. I want to give a heartfelt thankyou today to everyone who makes them possible. Eats & Beats first launched in Logan in 2015, and, if its recent success is any indication, it will continue for a long time to come.
I would also like to reflect today on the huge success of the Beenleigh Town Square itself, which made it possible to host events like Eats & Beats in our community. The project, completed in 2015, transformed Beenleigh's town centre from a headache-inducing six-way roundabout into a pedestrian-friendly plaza for the local community. It was officially opened by the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, in 2015 and since then has reinvigorated Beenleigh by providing an attractive community hub right in the heart of town. The project was a collaboration between three levels of government, including the federal government contributing $3 million as our part of the Community Development Grants Program. It gives me great pleasure to report in this chamber today just how positive it has been for the social and economic infrastructure of the community of Beenleigh and surrounds. The venue was full from 5 pm until 9 pm on Friday night, with many new memories made and people catching up with old friends and making new friends. The food was fabulous. It is obvious that the square will continue to be a source of positivity for the area for many years to come.
Greenway Electorate: Woman of the Year Awards
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (10:47): I rise today to praise the efforts of three remarkable women who have each been recognised as a local woman of the year for 2017. These awards recognise outstanding contributions made by women who go above and beyond in their communities. In my electorate of Greenway, three women received this honour in 2017, covering Blacktown, Riverstone and Seven Hills.
The 2017 Blacktown woman of the year is Elfa Moraitakis, Chief Executive Officer of SydWest Multicultural Services. SydWest is an exceptional community support service based in Blacktown which assists people from ethnically and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Elfa is an incredibly hardworking and passionate advocate for women in our community, especially those going through the settlement journey. Elfa is an outspoken supporter for action against the scourge of domestic violence, which, unfortunately, disproportionately affects women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, particularly in such a multicultural part of Australia as mine. Elfa is also dedicated to empowering women through education. The esteem in which SydWest is held in our community is a testament to Elfa's dedication and leadership and, of course, to the way in which she inspires her whole team.
The Riverstone woman of the year is Nicole Winram, a resident of Stanhope Gardens who is a community advocate for cancer patients and palliative care and one of the most driven people I have ever met. Her work was born out of the experiences of her late husband, who passed away eight years ago from oesophageal cancer. Nicole has been a tireless advocate for reducing the cost burdens on cancer patients and has been involved with the Cancer Council's CanAct volunteer program, along with the New South Wales Saving Life campaign. As a result of her advocacy, in 2015 the New South Wales government removed co-payments on many specialised cancer drugs. Nicole continues to agitate for improved palliative care services, including working with Westmead Hospital to move palliative care out of the oncology ward and into a trial standalone ward. Nicole is an inspiring woman who has been rightly recognised for her commitment to improving the lives of people and families affected by cancer.
The Seven Hills woman of the year for 2017 is Joan van den Burg, a fellow resident of Glenwood and the administrative director of Hills-Kellyville Rotary Club. Locally, the club is renowned for its work assisting North West Disability Services, as well is its annual Australia Day breakfast and citizenship ceremony. Joan has worked in child protection and disability services, and it is wonderful to see that she has continued to pursue these passions in her volunteer work with rotary. Remarkably, when Joan first became involved with Rotary, women were not even allowed to become Rotary members. Joan has made a remarkable contribution to the efforts of Rotary in our community over many years. It is so pleasing to see her efforts and passion recognised. I warmly congratulate Elfa, Nicole and Joan on their rightful recognition as local women of the year.
University of the Sunshine Coast Clinical Trials Centre
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (10:50): On Friday of last week, I had the opportunity to visit the University of the Sunshine Coast—known as USC—Clinical Trials Centre and meet its director, Mr Lucas Litewka, and its staff. The USC Clinical Trials Centre, like the USC's Innovation Centre and the Thompson Institute, is yet another shining example of how the USC is leading the way in identifying needs in our community and filling them with creative innovation.
The folks at USC tell me that they conducted a detailed analysis of the existing clinical trials industry. They found that the overwhelming majority of clinical trial opportunities are available in the major capital cities, while in regions like the Sunshine Coast we suffer from poor coordination across sectors and skills shortages in a highly specialised clinical workforce. The Sunshine Coast has been missing out on as much as 75 per cent of inbound opportunities, like these clinical trials centres, because of its lack of capacity. USC has identified a critical shortage in our region's capabilities, and it has acted to invest in our region's future to make a difference. Importantly, USC has sought to create not only an innovative clinical trials centre but also one which supports regionally relevant research. People on the Sunshine Coast deserve access to cutting-edge treatments and breakthrough therapies that are targeted to them. That is what the centre brings for local people. But, in creating the centre, the university has also created a fundamentally patient-centric institute. In addition to a rigorous regime of informed consent, it is the first clinical trials centre in the world to require all sponsors and researchers to provide trial participants with a summary of the research findings and to thank them in the eventual research publications.
The centre is housed in what we know as a GP super clinic established by the Abbott government. The clinical trials centre brings together a network of 16 local health providers, including GPs, hospitals and specialists, to provide phases 2, 3 and 4 and observational drug and device clinical trials. It has access to electrocardiography, respiratory function testing and neurophysiology and radiology services, and it has its own refrigerated centrifuge. The centre is currently recruiting for a clinical trial into a cutting-edge triple therapy medicine for asthma. They have already completed recruitment for trials into cannabinoidal gel for epilepsy and treatments for osteoarthritis, COPD, emphysema and flu. Their flu trial, conducted by a first-time investigator, recruited 73 patients in just six weeks. As the centre grows and develops, it will actively draw investment into our community from the pharmaceutical industry and hopefully from research teams all over the world.
Adelaide Electorate: Millswood Infrastructure
Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide) (10:53): One of the many things that annoys Australians about this place is the way that, too often, we members of parliament stand and make grand announcements and outline bold visions for the future, but, when it comes to actually affecting the day-to-day issues which are hurting people's lives, often this is a place that is too slow to move. I have one such example of where sometimes the small things can be the hardest things to get fixed. I am talking about a walking path in Millswood in my electorate which has been closed and which the community have been crying out to be reopened so that they can continue to travel from A to B. This might be a very localised issue, but it is an issue that appears to have gotten stuck in the divide between federal and state governments. The federal government would say that the walking path is not their responsibility and that it is a state government responsibility. However, this is a walking path that has been closed because it has been deemed unsafe along the freight line managed by the ARTC. What all of this means is that there is a whole lot of back and forth and very little action.
I have made a commitment to the local community and I am determined to reopen this walking path, if it is one of the last things that I do in this place. It is something that I have been on. I have had our shadow minister, Anthony Albanese, come and visit the site, and he has declared, as I have, that this should be a very simple thing for government to address. How on earth can we expect the community to have faith in us undertaking major infrastructure upgrades if we cannot open a simple path?
I have written to the minister and I have written to the ARTC, and I, for one, am sick and tired of the responses that I am getting, so I can only begin to imagine the frustration of the local residents. I received a response in January from Minister Darren Chester, who has informed me that the ARTC have advised him that they are concerned about pedestrian safety associated with the path and they will not be reopening the walking path along the rail corridor. I just want to reiterate in this place: I am not asking the ARTC to reopen this pathway. What I am asking the ARTC to do is to conduct a safety audit to tell us what it would take to be able to safely reopen this pathway. That is the first step; that is all we are requesting of them. I am then happy to take up the battle, whether it be with the state government or with the federal government, to get the funds to put the fence in place to reopen the walking path. This is not the last time I will raise this issue. I can assure you that this is on my list of things to do, and I intend to deliver for my community and reopen the Millswood walking track.
Leader of the Opposition
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (10:57): That was a very daunting contribution by the member for Adelaide, but I want to speak about an equally important issue, and it is trying to understand why Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, says one thing when it suits him and then says something completely the opposite when political expediency requires. Over the week gone, I was listening in the intense Adani debate to the Leader of the Opposition say that not a cent of taxpayers' money should go towards funding this mine while, at exactly the same time, his Queensland compatriots are working out ways to give Adani taxpayer funding in the form of royalty holidays.
By the same token, you will all remember the same-sex marriage debate and clips of Bill Shorten, speaking at a public event, saying that he was completely open to the idea of a public vote where the nation gets to decide on same-sex marriage. Yet all of a sudden, once he was leader, he was virulently opposed to a plebiscite. I remember the comments Bill Shorten made when a minister in government, saying how important it was to be a Keating-like figure and pull down company tax rates to make it easier to liberate resources and jobs into an expanding economy. Yet, the minute he became leader, he was incredibly opposed to the notion of reducing company tax because it is 'tax cuts to billionaires', or whatever the latest rhetoric is, despite only years earlier having said that it was a perfectly good idea.
There is something bigger than all of us in this chamber—the NDIS. Those on both sides have said that it is about contributing according to ability, because we never know which of us may need the NDIS. It is about offering $1.5 million to $3.5 million of support over a lifetime for a profound disability. No-one knows where and to whom that may occur. We have always agreed that it is about contributing according to ability and by percentage according to what we earn. That was fine when Mr Shorten was in government. But now, when it comes to doing precisely what we supported him in doing—raising the Medicare levy by 0.5 per cent—it is all of a sudden utterly impossible for this Leader of the Opposition to contemplate doing what we supported him in doing. How can you get a simpler example of being a backflipper than of pushing in government for a 0.5 per cent increase and then in opposition fighting against a 0.5 per cent increase under the same rules?
On penalty rates, we have seen that this Leader of the Opposition is quite happy to go and pluck an individual worker out of the Capalaba Sports Club and rail against changes in an enterprise agreement that a union is not a party to, and yet this is a Leader of the Opposition who personally, as the then head of the union, wrote up to 120 of these enterprise agreements. You have Penny Vickers out there fighting for dear life for those who are even more worse off under these union designed agreements, only to have this Leader of the Opposition worried about the ones that unions wrote up. This is just evidence of hashtag 'Backflip Bill'. We will be hearing more about it in coming months.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has now concluded.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2017-2018
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Dr MIKE KELLY (Eden-Monaro) (11:00): I rise to talk on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018 specifically in the context of the Defence appropriations. This is also in the context of the cumulative effect of the budgets during this coalition government. Labor have always said and continue to say that we would be very keen to make sure that cooperation in this place is bipartisan. We all across the chamber, I think, believe in the concept of bipartisanship on national security. Certainly my colleague here in the chamber with me and other members of the coalition and Labor enact that in the context of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in a very effective way.
I think, however, we have all been disturbed—including, I think, the public and members of the coalition as well—about the degree to which the current Minister for Defence Industry has attempted to politicise this space. He has made some quite outrageous assertions in that context. Certainly I think we could do a lot better when it comes to a minister in that space, and there are many candidates on the coalition side I could suggest, including yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz. What we have seen in this four years has been chaos, confusion and dysfunction in the portfolio. We have had three different ministers—and a fourth seems to be on the way, if you believe the reporting. They have included David 'Canoe' Johnston, who had particular issues. I know part of his problem was dealing with the PMO at the time as well. He was hindered by that relationship with the PMO.
What we have seen is a distortion of the history. Across governments there are always issues with Defence procurement and managing highly complex platforms and technologies. Getting that right has always been a challenge for governments of all colours. So it is not just one government that tends to have these problems but many governments over a long period of time when it comes to managing projects that straddle governments.
The few that I am particularly concerned about getting the record straight on include Land 400, which is the project to replace our armoured vehicle capabilities—the combat reconnaissance vehicle and the infantry fighting vehicle. We have also seen issues to do with shipbuilding projects of concern. When we attained government in 2007 we discovered there were about 21 projects that were in serious management crisis and had serious issues. So we had to create a projects-of-concern process to manage that. By the time we left government, we had managed to remediate that down to about six projects.
But there have been significant disasters, such as the Seasprite, which involved the expenditure of $1.4 billion of public money for an aircraft that we did not get any flying time out of at all and which had to be abandoned completely. Labor remediated that by getting the Seahawk Romeos on board, which are world-leading aircraft now being deployed. There was also a landing craft disaster where $40 million was spent on landing craft that did not fit any vessel we owned at the time or any vessel we were going to acquire. That was quite extraordinary. Of course, they have been dispensed with as well.
But I am particularly concerned about Land 400 and the process for that that is underway at the moment. Under Labor's plan for Land 400 we were going to acquire 1,100 vehicles. We would have been through first-pass approval in March or April 2014. We have had the situation where not only has that time line slipped significantly but also the concept of the two phases—phase 2, the combat reconnaissance vehicle, and phase 3, the infantry fighting vehicle—which were linked under Labor for the benefit of the synergies and the involvement of Australian industry and the possibilities of the two platforms being quite related was abandoned under the Abbott administration, which split those two phases for some unknown reason and pushed phase 3 way out beyond the time lines that were feasible and credible.
For those who do not understand that fact: it is the issue that relates to the fact that the M113s are Vietnam-era platforms, and many could argue they are actually beyond their use-by date now. In fact, you could make the argument that they are not deployable, because they cannot survive in the current complex environments of improvised explosive devices and the like. So we are really now expecting to push those out well beyond a lifetime that is sustainable.
The other issue is the reduction in numbers. As I mentioned, Labor had set a 1,100 target, which related to the current usage of combat reconnaissance vehicles and the ASLAVs and the M113 numbers. Now, the ASLAVs have been flogged in recent operational deployments, from Timor to Afghanistan to Iraq et cetera. They are one of the most utilised platforms in the ADF inventory, now well and truly feeling their age and use, and will probably not be able to be used beyond 2021. We have seen the numbers in the combat reconnaissance vehicle aspect of that project drop from the 253 ASLAVs we currently have down to 225, and the numbers just keep falling in this space, so that is also of great concern.
There is more I could say about Land 400, but hopefully we will determine more out of the Senate estimates process coming up this week. I am greatly concerned that really good defence industries in Australia have been excluded from that participation. Why EOS, a great company that does world-leading remote weapons stations, was excluded from competition in this space I have no idea. It has led to a great deal of anger amongst authorities like Lieutenant General Leahy and others, who well understand this project. Elphinstone in Tasmania, which do fantastic metal bending, really should have been proactively and aggressively worked into this project. Two final bids have been accepted. It is really inexplicable why the GDLS-Thales bid and the Elbit TERREX bid were excluded from competition as well. Much more will need to be explained about that. Also, the lack of numbers in this budget over the forward estimates for Land 400 is mystifying.
Also, I want to address specifically the Minister for Defence Industry's statements that Labor did not commission a single local construction of a vessel in the six years that we were in government. This is incredibly misleading about what it takes to do major fleet unit projects in this nation or anywhere. It takes many, many years of planning and process. Just take for example the Collins project. In replacing the Oberon submarines, the process actually began in 1978. We finally got around to building the actual facilities for the Collins through that 1987 to 1990 period, and construction of the submarines began in 1990. That gives you an idea of the length of the process.
Now, to bell the cat on that, this is the government's own Naval Shipbuilding Plan, and I refer to what it says there about the 12 Future Submarines project, which it discusses, in terms of the truth about those time lines. It says, effectively:
The length of a submarine construction process means that Australia will need to be planning for the follow-on submarine capability well before the twelfth future submarine enters service.
That is the truth of submarine construction, so planning for the replacement of the Collins should have begun well before the last boat hit the water in that 2001 to 2003 period. When we got to government in 2007, absolutely no work had been done on the replacement of the Collins. We also found that there had been no investment in sustainment and maintenance of the Collins, so we were hard pressed to keep one vessel in the water.
We immediately threw $700 million at remediating that sustainment and maintenance issue and got up to very good standards of availability. Also, through that process we delved into issues to do with deep-cycle maintenance and improving that, including hull-cutting techniques and the like, which have placed us well for moving into Future Submarine construction. But trying to claim that nothing was done in that six years—it is a complete myth and a falsehood. Apart from the sustainment and maintenance issue that we addressed, we immediately looked at what needed to be done to replace the Collins.
The first part of that process was to do the service-life evaluation program for the Collins submarine, to work out how long we had with the Collins and whether we could do a local build or we would be forced into a military off-the-shelf purchase. At the same time, we did a due-diligence study of those military off-the-shelf options. We discovered, looking at programs like the Ohio class submarine program in the United States, that, yes, we could get quite a few extra seven-year cycles out of the Collins. With the Ohio class, for example, they extended that program by 10 years. So we knew we could cope with that by extending the life of the Collins.
We immediately then engaged in selecting the combat system—the AN/BYG-1 combat system—which the government has proceeded with, as well. The other aspect—the key aspect that you build a boat around, aside from the combat system—is propulsion, so we immediately set funds aside to do a land based propulsion testing facility to progress that aspect of the project. We also allocated $266 million in the 2013 budget to fund 85 separate activities and contracts to get the whole submarine process rolling. We had Prime Minister Abbott coming in with his famous 'captain's pick' process, wanting to go with a Japanese submarine off the shelf, and was trying to reverse-engineer all of these processes around achieving that, simply because of some vague relationship, or other issues—a submarine that was not suitable for Australian operational demands, requirements and environments. So that just 'blew out of the water', to coin a phrase, the whole process and effectively delayed it by four years.
The competitive evaluation process, we will say, has managed to finally get things on track, and we won't take issue with the selection there, in terms of the technical capabilities of the Barracuda—the DCNS proposal—and we are hoping that that project works out all right. But there are now many question marks around the huge problem that has been created for us in the loss of skills and industrial capacity—industrial capacity that we spent $1 billion remediating. Just to back-track a bit there, for the benefit of history I might also correct some of Minister Pyne's assertions, in that it was Labor that created a modern shipbuilding capacity in Australia by bringing home the last two of the Adelaide class Perry frigates to be built in this country, which then rolled into the construction of the Anzac frigates, which was a great success story and built tremendous capacity in this country. Then, of course, it rolled into the Collins submarine, which set this country up very well in that space as well. These are very complicated systems we are talking about here, in terms of naval architecture, systems management, systems integration and engineering skills. All of that was lost because nothing was done through that period from the construction of the last Anzacs and the last submarines. So we lost a great deal of capacity.
Labor mediated that capacity and got the workforce back up to over 4,000 skilled workers. We made tremendous gains in productivity and quality, and the fact that we were maintaining yards in Newcastle and Melbourne helped us to manage that process. So, when we ran into quality or productivity issues or workload issues we were able to shift blocks around yards, initially take blocks away from BAE while they built up and remediated productivity and quality and then, when workflow became a problem for Forgacs, giving four blocks back to BAE in Melbourne.
What we are facing now is this so-called 'valley of death' issue. Labor had fully intended to address that, and, of course, we produced only shipbuilding planned that was a far more substantial document then this pamphlet I am holding in which, if you go through it, I counted there are at least nine repetitions of paragraphs in it to flesh it out. If you come from a military background and read this, you say, 'That, my friend, is not a plan.' There are a lot of motherhood statements and flagging of skills issues, which would not have existed if the government of Prime Minister Abbott had simply picked up the shipbuilding plan and run with it, because in here we flagged the necessity to move towards a continuous rolling build, which creates efficiencies for the long-term and saves, as flagged in this document I have, tens of billions of dollars for the Australian taxpayer. But those skills have bled out. We were going to address that, particularly by moving forward with an immediate build of the supply vessels. The supply vessels could have been built here. In fact, I have the written recommendations from the Department of Defence to me, which said that 'a full in-country build for this project could provide critical workflow to Australia's naval shipbuilding sector, all across three shipyards, avoiding the costly decline of specialist skills between completion of the LHD and AWD projects and the start of the future submarine'. They said, 'actually moving ahead with this project, not only could we do it we should, because'—and they say it here in this optimisation plan—'it could overcome the imminent impact of the valley of death on the sustainability of the national shipbuilding industry and retention of critical skills. There are no known reasons why either design that we were contemplating at the time could not be entirely built in Australia.' What happened? Obviously, Prime Minister Abbott, in another captain's pick saga, decided he wanted to mend fences with Korea, which he had annoyed over another aspect, which I cannot go into the details of, and also to secure the free trade agreement, decided to ask them to build a Spanish design in Korea, which was crazy in itself. Of course, when Prime Minister Abbott was moved on, the government quite rightly said: 'Well, we won't do that. Let's ask the Spaniards to build a Spanish vessel.' That did make more sense.
However, we are still seeing the consequences now of not pushing forward with those massive vessels, over 20,000 tonnes, which would have pushed us into a whole new category of capability in shipbuilding and, as I mentioned, bridged that valley of death, saving us tens of billions of dollars. As indicated in these plans, when you go back to cold starts in shipbuilding, you are causing yourself a world of grief, and it poses serious questions over the time lines and the skills approach that the government will take. There is a much greater need for an aggressive approach to that skills issue. With the attacks that have been made on TAFEs, the skills needs out there and the time lines that are spelled out there, when we are talking about engaging in a future frigate project, for example, in 2020, there are serious questions marks over whether that will be met. So this is a budget that continues a tradition, and a bad one.
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne—Assistant Minister for Health) (11:15): It is my great pleasure to speak on the Turnbull-Joyce 2017 budget, which has made the right choices for the nation. It not only balances the need for us to responsibly fund essential services but allows us to live financially within our means and delivers a fair and responsible financial plan to get our budget back into balance—that is, to get the national accounts out of the red, or deficit, and into the black, or surplus. Being in surplus allows us as a nation to start paying back our national debt—or, in common parlance, our mortgage. No longer will we be paying our mortgage by borrowing on the credit card.
As I mentioned, any government needs to responsibly fund essential services like Medicare and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We have the Medicare Guarantee Fund, putting aside the Medicare levy plus extra capital to guarantee Medicare. We have started getting the Medicare indexation out of the deep freeze and thawing it in a staged fashion. The NDIS has a well-documented $5½ billion funding gap that needs to be paid from somewhere. That is why we have a responsible solution, with a 0.5 per cent increase from 2019, when the funding gap appears, on top of the Medicare levy.
Also in the health space we have secured so-called financial headroom of $1.8 billion in savings on pharmaceutical benefits by getting a better price from the pharmaceutical companies for their old, established drugs which are now off patent or ending the period when they need to get that return for the billions of dollars invested. We are putting that aside to allow funding for the new, more novel and exciting but very expensive drugs to come in at the start of their life. That allows us to fund drugs like cancer drugs and drugs for heart disease, cystic fibrosis and hepatitis C. There are extra funds for mental health and cancer research. The Medical Research Future Fund is now starting to pay dividends.
Aged care has also been a beneficiary. There is over $5 billion across the forward estimates to keep our expanded Commonwealth home support packages going. They are allowing senior Australians to age in place, in their own homes. It is much better for them and for their families, and it is also much more cost effective. We have just recently—in the last week—announced out of this budget another $649 million for 9,900 extra aged-care places. Just in my electorate of Lyne, there is over $100 million paid annually into the aged-care industry, which supports many hundreds and thousands of aged-care recipients. In Wauchope, my home town, $8.5 million has been allocated to Bundaleer Care Services for a massive expansion, with 40 new high-care places focusing on ageing in place and dementia care. This will allow a new capital works development, replacing the old Bundaleer nursing home with a new, state-of-the-art building, which will expand the facility to 145 places eventually. It will also mean that, going forward, there will be somewhere for the huge load of aged care required because we have such an ageing demographic in our electorate.
In the Lyne electorate the dementia rates are in fact the second highest in the nation. We have one of the most aged demographics in the nation. We are at the forefront of the ageing phenomenon that is spoken about in this House so often. On the North Coast of New South Wales there is a demographic phenomenon called 'retirement', which has driven a lot of the population growth. That is why we have so many people in that space in their life where they eventually turn to aged care. It is better that they stay in their own homes longer, rather than being in full residential care. Many of us know the scourge of dementia and the various processes that lead to it, whether it is Alzheimer's, vascular dementia or any of the other variants of dementia. It places a huge burden on people's partners and other family members. Many sufferers eventually will need support in dementia-specific aged care, and that is what is going to happen at Wauchope.
This expansion is not unique to Wauchope. The current budget will fund some massive expansions. At Pacific Cape in Forster there is a $40 million project being developed, even bigger than the $30 million project that will be facilitated in Wauchope. Peter Sinclair Gardens at Tea Gardens has just undergone an expansion, with 17 new places, and the Whiddon Group has finished a six-place extension, worth $2 million, in Largs. All these expansions add not only to the suite of possible care but also to regular long-term employment, because in a 50-bed residential care facility the workforce matches patient numbers almost one for one.
Many other good things in this budget have come to the nation. Small businesses, like the 14,000 that operate in the Lyne electorate, will benefit from the 27½ per cent company tax rate. It means the return on small businesses' investments will be greater. People in small businesses are not like wage earners, where the business pays them. For many men and women in small business, the profit that the company makes is their wage, so if they do not make a profit they are working for nothing.
We have also continued the instant asset write-off, which is a great program because it is so targeted. Businesses buy only the equipment that will benefit the business, and they are paying with their earnings, their money; it is not like they are getting a grant. The idea that businesses should pay for stuff without the appropriation of tax is such a sensible idea. We should actually target that in many more things, such as in the transfer payment system. But that is an aside; we will get back to this budget.
We have addressed many other serious problems in the tax base, such as bracket creep. We are all familiar with what bracket creep is. For the average wage earner, now $87,000, rather than $80,000, is the level at which you move into the second highest tax bracket.
We really have tried to look after people in work with our new affordable and more flexible child care and jobs for families package, which means that if you are earning up to roughly $185,000 there is no cap on what you can claim for child care. The more you are working, the more you can claim. Then there is a tiered system where the more you earn after that, the less the rebate is. But we have maintained support so that the most vulnerable children, who would benefit from child care and day care, get access for a minimum of 15 hours a week.
We are also trying to help people to get ahead and establish themselves in life by helping first home buyers. So they can get ahead and get their deposit a lot sooner, we will allow them to salary sacrifice up to $30,000 into their superannuation scheme and then pay a reduced tax when they take it out. Up on the north coast, this will be a great boon to a lot of young families who are just starting of their life, as my wife and I did when we moved up to the north coast 25 years ago. At the other end of the spectrum, we are trying to free up housing stock and let seniors who have worked all their lives and put money into their own homes downsize and put up to $300,000 each into their superannuation. We are also getting people off welfare and into work with our ParentsNext program, our Youth Jobs PaTH program and our Work for the Dole program.
In the infrastructure space, we are delivering in spades for the nation. Not only are we continuing to build the Pacific Highway in the Bruce Highway; we have appropriated $8.5 billion for the Inland Rail, which will be a freight corridor running through Victoria, New South Wales and south-eastern Queensland and into the Port of Brisbane. This will open up the food bowls and resource bowls of all of that massive hinterland, getting products to the markets more quickly and more cheaply. It will get 200,000 trucks off the Pacific Highway and the New England Highway. It will be an economic catalyst for growth in regional areas like Narrabri, Toowoomba, Goondiwindi, Parkes and Dubbo. All these wonderful areas that are so rich in agriculture will actually be able to connect so that all the value-adding businesses will cluster around this critical infrastructure. As we have said before, we have been delivering on dams, and the funding for further dam and irrigation projects continues.
Everyone in Australia wants to be sure that the top end of town is paying its fair share of tax. We have a multinational tax avoidance law and we are extending it to foreign partnerships and foreign trusts. We have the tax avoidance task force, which is embedded into some of the big corporate taxpayers to make sure that there is no strategic or directed tax avoidance. To make our tax system much more integrated and much more reliable, we have a penalty diverted profits tax and we are addressing all these multinational anti-avoidance laws into transfer pricing and antihybrid mismatch rules.
Local government will be happy because we have reindexed the financial assistance grants. The Roads to Recovery program and black spot programs continue. In this space in regional Australia we also have our Regional Jobs and Investment Packages. The north coast is the recipient of one of these funds. We are looking to invest in and help grow critical infrastructure, social programs and businesses. The Building Better Regions Fund is aimed at these sorts of projects as well, as is our Stronger Communities Program, which is continuing.
There are so many good things in this budget that the coalition and the nation should be really proud of. As I mentioned, we have laid out a credible financial path to getting our finances back in order. By 2021 we should be in surplus, and shrinkage of some of the funding in the recurrent spending means we are starting to live within our means. But critical infrastructure that will grow the economy and the things that everyone in Australia who is working and has a family depends on, like Medicare and schools, is getting extra funds. Look at the school education budget: $18.6 billion extra into all levels of the school system, whether it is independent schools, the Catholic school system or state government run schools.
My last comment is just to put paid to the falsity put out by members on the other side that a cut means money this year is less than last year. Money is going up in education to the tune of $18.6 billion. It is not as big as the hypothetical, blue sky promises, but that does not mean a cut. That is just confusing people. There is an extra $18.6 billion going into federal education funding, into all levels of the school system. There will be state government schools, Catholic and Christian schools— (Time expired)
Mr HILL (Bruce) (11:31): We have returned to Canberra with, I noticed this morning, the one per cent budget bounce the government got in the Newspoll a couple of weeks ago having gone. They are back to another slump in the polls. It is pretty clear why. After a couple of weeks of digesting the reality of this budget, it has dawned on people that this is a fundamentally unfair budget from a desperate government with no narrative and no reason to be.
The ultimate test of any budget should be—must be—how it addresses the big challenges which our nation faces. Key amongst those challenges are sluggish growth and low wage growth, as well as unemployment and underemployment. This budget gives up on jobs and growth, which is perhaps a blessing for those of us who have had to listen to that slogan for near to 12 months. I do not think we are going to hear much more about jobs and growth when the growth projections in this budget are down, wages growth is down and unemployment is up, with 95,000 fewer jobs forecast in this budget.
The budget fails the fiscal responsibility test. I heard the honourable member for Lyne, who spoke before me, talking about a credible financial path. That is what they said in their first budget and their second budget and their third budget, and they are saying it again. Yet, four years on, gross debt is shortly to pass $500 billion, well on track to exceed $700 billion in 10 years, and the deficit this year will be 10 times bigger than was forecast in the Liberals' first budget. That is a credible financial path, apparently. It is sort of magic economics: we vote Tony Abbott in and somehow the budget is going to whirr back into surplus because they are so competent. The numbers tell another story. After so many years of hearing from then-Treasurer Hockey—whatever he is doing now—and everybody else that there is no revenue problem, there is a funny admission. Finally, there is an honest admission that there is in fact a revenue problem, with the bank levy slammed on with no notice and a tax rise for everyone founded on a lie over the National Disability Insurance Scheme funding. But they still will not undertake responsible structural changes over the medium term, which is what we really need for a credible path back to surplus. There is a housing crisis, but this budget does nothing of substance in relation to housing. Indeed, their signature initiative, which we keep hearing so much about, many economists say will tip more money into the housing market and fuel the affordability problems by adding to demand. There is an infrastructure crisis. We are on track for a record low level of investment, with cuts to infrastructure this year and zero new dollars for Victoria. The truth can only be found if you look at what is in the budget papers, rather than believe the spin that you hear in question time and heard in the Treasurer's speech on budget night, because most of the things that are talked about are not actually funded.
Overall, the budget is a tawdry, sad, confused little document. The member for Herbert, who is in the chamber, knows the Hollowmen documentary. This budget is something that you would see produced out of that sort of budget policy process. It has been designed in a focus group. You can imagine people sitting down, saying, 'Where are we vulnerable? We haven't spent enough on Medicare. People think we're pretty bad on schools. We'll just put a little fig leaf—a tick in a box—next to everything and try and band-aid over the truth with a few little gimmicks.' But overall it adds up to nothing. It is an abject sign of the failure of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. I think the newspapers are right in calling him the worst Treasurer in modern Australian history, as they are.
An honourable member interjecting —
Mr HILL: I do not think it is harsh; I think it is generous. Budgets are about choices, and the government has made fundamentally unfair choices. We have got tax cuts for the top end—a two per cent tax cut for every member of this parliament; we are in the top tax bracket. On the same day we get a tax cut there are cuts to penalty rates for 700,000 low-income workers. We found $65 billion apparently in the medium term for tax cuts to companies, including big multinationals and the banks. Apparently the banks are going to get back through the tax cuts almost as much as they will pay in the levy. It is a kind of pea-and-thimble trick. This is accompanied by a $22.3 billion cut to school funding when compared to the existing arrangements. There are tax cuts for the top end—that is, for us—and a tax rise for everyone else.
There are a couple of issues I want to turn my remarks to. The first is the degradation of public services. This budget continues and ramps up the Liberal government's sustained attack on Australia's public services and public servants, who work for all of us. We see further cuts of $1.9 billion to core public services through so-called efficiency dividends, plus another 1,188 jobs to go at Centrelink with the start of the privatisation of Centrelink that is quite clearly outlined in the budget papers.
Great societies have great public services—schools, TAFEs, universities, hospitals, health care, defence forces, police, emergency services and aged care. There are even our foreign affairs and trade representatives across the globe to advance Australia's interests and help craft economic and security environments in which we can prosper. To deliver great public services you need great people who are motivated, committed and supported. I am constantly disappointed when listening to many of those opposite—not all, but many—who like to degrade public servants, dragging up stereotypes and talking about people living off the public teat and so on. I think we should aspire to have the best and the brightest in our society taking careers in the public service and we should value the work that they do.
Yet, with no explanation—none at all—this budget inflicts further massive cuts on Centrelink and the Department of Human Services. Buried in Budget Paper No. 4 on page 136 it says that 1,188 jobs will be cut next year. That comes on top of 5,000 or so jobs cut since the government was elected four years ago. Even worse, some may argue, buried in Budget Paper No. 2 on page 147 is the advice that the government is now privatising 250 jobs to call centres. It is a trial. It is the start, but we know it is the thin end of the wedge. There is no advice of course about how much this will cost. If you look in the table and think, 'I wonder how much this is going to cost?' all that is written is 'NFP'. That does not mean 'not-for-profit'; it is not a volunteering initiative. It means 'not for publication'—'We're not going to tell you,' says the government, 'how much this privatisation is going to cost.'
Centrelink of course, as any member in this place who spends any time in their electorate office would know, is one of the most stressed areas of the government. The delays in answering phones are a national joke. There were 36 million unanswered calls last year. We have started to find out how they rort the statistics. When the minister talks about the average wait time, he picks a telephone queue, which is probably one that no-one calls—maybe his office calls a few times—and says: 'It is only 12 minutes. There is nothing to worry about.' The reality is that, if you call and get through and get transferred to another person, transferred to another person and transferred to another person and have been on the phone for one hour and a quarter, that counts as four calls and it is averaged out to lower the call wait times. The hang up times—the 36 million calls where no-one gets through—are not counted in any statistics at all. So the statistics, even the ones that the government publishes, which are bad enough, are wrong. As anyone knows, getting through to Centrelink is a national joke.
There are delays in claims because of the lost staff, delays in disability support pension claims and family payments and, most particularly I have noticed in recent months, delays in age pension claims. I have had to escalate and try to push through a number of claims for people who say: 'It is all very well for Centrelink to say that they will back pay me in three months, four months, five months or six months when they get around to processing my pension, but I have had to retire from work because my husband has got a serious illness and I need the health care card because we go to specialists and we have pathology bills. We do all this stuff every week and we do not get a discount. The doctor does not give us a discount until we get the card. We cannot go to the doctor and get thousands of dollars of medical bills back paid, can we?'
These are the real impacts on the community through taking the human out of Human Services, which is what this government is doing. I encourage everyone to speak up against the cuts. The CPSU, the union that represents public sector workers, has started a campaign that deserves support. Importantly, I encourage people to direct their anger not at Centrelink staff, not at the people on the end of the phone, but at the government. It is this rotten government that deserves the anger of citizens trying to get basic services, not the stressed-out staff who remain trying to do their best.
Of course, it is not just Centrelink. We have heard from the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection that the government are starting to privatise and casualise there too. The government are putting 250 jobs into call centres over the next 12 months in Immigration. This is not just ordinary queries; this often is dealing with people's most personal information. In the case of many people who travel, or where there may be security issues, it is not an exaggeration to say that this is life and death information that these call centres deal with. In the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, already we have 450 labour hire contractors sitting there—not public servants but doing public servant work. I wonder what the overheads and the cost-benefit truly are for that.
The practical impacts, though, are further degraded services for the community and job losses and wage cuts for staff. Casualisation and insecure work are a growing issue. How are you supposed to get a home loan or do the basic things which people working full time would normally expect if you cannot go to the bank with a contract, because you are on week to week or fortnight to fortnight, which is what the government wants to do to more of its own workforce?
This is consistent, of course, with the government's ideology not only about cutting wages, as we see with penalty rates, but also about the EBA negotiations. This is perhaps the most shameful. I think that you can judge a government by how it manages its own workforce. The fact that staff in the Department of Human Services, year after year after year under this government, have had no EBA agreements in place and not one per cent, not a dollar, in a pay rise is bad enough. But do you know what the sticking point is? It is not actually money; it is the fact that the staff there are smart enough to refuse point blank to trade off their basic entitlements in the EBA for flexible working conditions by putting them into policies in which they then have no protection.
I know this from the time when I took the best part of a year working flexibly—I took part-time and reduced arrangements—while nursing my mum, with cancer, at home. With those entitlements—even as a senior public servant, I had the same entitlements—I could walk in and say: 'Hey, I've got personal and family responsibilities. I was raised by a single mum. Helping her die, and die well, at home is important to me.' I had an industrial right—not something that I had to beg for but an industrial right—under the EBA so that I was allowed to keep my job and cut my hours and still meet my caring responsibilities. That is what this government is trying to take away from every public servant through these disgraceful EBAs. I stand proudly with the public servants being attacked day in, day out, by this government. These sorts of measures should be called out and opposed.
In the time remaining, I would say that, if there is one group above all others who should be furious about how they are treated and forgotten in this budget, it is young people. Last week, members may remember that we heard a bit from those opposite about it being 75 years since Sir Robert Menzies's famous Forgotten People speech. Ironically, that was, of course, while Menzies himself was at risk of being forgotten by history, before his second coming when he made his seminal speech. Seventy-five years on, in this Liberal budget, there is no doubt at all that, if there is one group above all others which is forgotten, abandoned by Menzies's party, it is young people.
Those who cannot vote are completely sold out, with a $22.3 billion cut to school funding as compared to the current arrangements. The baseline those opposite use to talk about it as a funding increase is: 'Abbott cut $30 billion, so we've put a bit more back in.' Somehow that is a funding increase, even though it is still a massive cut. The greatest single con is the government trying to present it as an increase. It sells out the idea of equality of opportunity—that any kid, wherever they are from and whatever their family circumstances, has the best chance in life at fulfilling their potential—and it sells out Australia's future by not investing, to the required standard and in a reasonable time frame, the required funds.
I have heard particular anger through my office about the attacks on higher education. The latest cuts over the next two years, another 2.5 per cent out of universities, bring it to a total of around $4 billion cut from core university funding under this government. It is a pretence to say that this will not impact research and that it will not threaten our global standing in our rankings and quality of education. What it does is raise university fees and contributions to amongst the highest in the developed world. Worst of all, from an equity point of view, it lowers the repayment threshold for young people so graduates will be forced to repay their debts earlier. When people start earning $42,000, which is not a lot of money in today's society, they will get whacked to repay. This further undermines the equitable principles which underlie higher education loans programs.
Those opposite and their cheer squads say: 'Don't worry, it's just a few dollars. It's only a few dollars. It's $8 here and $10 there and $15 there.' Of course, if you have rich parents—the Prime Minister's housing policy—it is just a few dollars. But those few dollars make a real difference for ordinary families. These are people—perhaps they are the first in their family to go to university—who are genuinely worried about the debt they are taking on because they know from their friends that it will decrease their chances of getting a home loan until it is repaid, or because of the stories they hear of people deferring starting a family year after year because they cannot afford to repay their debt, and save for a home, and save for a family. We know from what we hear in the community—and from what I heard at Monash University when talking to students a couple of weeks ago, and what I hear from my own daughter, who is at the University of Melbourne—that young people are price sensitive. They are worried about their future and worried about taking on more debt. Just a few dollars here or a few dollars there do make a difference, and they fuel the rising inequality we see in this country.
The government, of course, is always prepared to find very large amounts of money for the top end. There is a two per cent tax cut for people on high incomes—including me—and a $65 billion company tax cut. It does go to priorities and choices. We saw a lot of the so-called zombie measures abandoned in this budget. I dearly hope that the higher education measures become the new and first zombie measures in this budget and will never pass this parliament. (Time expired)
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (11:46): We hear this occasional argument about the war on young people, and it is worth putting it in perspective. It is a rare thing to listen to a federal debate where there is almost no complaint about the health system from the Labor Party, but that really is a measure of just how well Medicare, the PBS and the PBAC are functioning. There has just been a complete farrago of new drugs approved—I think 1,200 in the last 4½ years. What we are seeing is an exceptionally well run health system, one which the Labor opposition are increasingly finding difficult to take umbrage with. Of course, that is something that has been perennially the opposition's showcase element. When you were in doubt coming into an election, starting a scare campaign based around Medicare was usually the way you got through a campaign and got pretty close to winning government.
I want to focus particularly on young people, who will be watching the debate today. When you clear away the usual boredom of 'Labor said this and Liberal said that', what people are trying to understand—and I do apologise, Deputy Speaker, that I referred to some of this earlier this morning in this very chamber—is where this Leader of the Opposition stands. It is very unusual to see a strongly performing opposition with a leader whom people do not want to come within 50 feet of. That is a very unusual political circumstance in the cycle of history, and it is important to dig down to why it is the case. Obviously, from our point of view, the longer he stays in the job the better. But what we are seeing—without giving any suggestions to members of his caucus—is a situation where, increasingly, for everything he says, he said something exactly the opposite just a few years ago. In this world of social media, it is all recorded. You cannot go to a community meeting and say to people, 'I fully support a public vote on same-sex marriage,' and then make the cornerstone of your period in opposition a vehement fight against the public having a vote on same-sex marriage. I cannot even use different words. It is exactly the same argument, and a complete flip from one position to the other.
That is not something you could really have accused the great Julia Gillard or the Great Kevin Rudd of! For one thing, they were passionate people driven by ideology. But we have moved into a new era of leaders, particularly with respect to your party, Deputy Speaker Bird, driven by the political pragmatism of the moment. A great example is Adani. I know that Deputy Speaker Bird, who is in the chamber at the moment, is not from Queensland, but having the Queensland Premier say, 'We strongly support the job-creating ability of a large company coming here and developing a coalmine where nobody else will'—environmental concerns aside; they obviously have to be met—has a certain public benefit. For the Leader of the Opposition to then run on some inner-city argument, topped with goat cheese and dill, that not a single taxpayer dollar should go towards the funding of the mine shows he obviously does not understand that every resource project in this country since Federation has had an element of taxpayers' money going towards getting it started. It might have been a public rail line, because all rail was publicly built back in those days. Now all we are talking about is providing a loan, which will be fully paid back, with interest, to the taxpayer, to develop that rail line. That is not controversial. The Leader of the Opposition is saying that federally not a dollar of taxpayers' money should go towards the mine, which GetUp!—or 'Get Labor Up!'—is running a campaign on. Talking out of one side of one's mouth sounds great on one side of the street.
But on the other side of one's mouth, of course, you have the same party saying the complete opposite up in Queensland, where you have people just desperate for a job or to have their dependants employed in, of all things, one of the largest coal mine projects. This is a foreign entity that is prepared to come and invest in this great nation and in its infrastructure—I mean, they cannot take the mine home with them if it all goes pear shaped. If the coal market does disappear, we are left with the jobs, with the infrastructure that they cannot fly home—and there is plenty of room for other mines if they wish to start—and with a rail link that looks after the entire sector and basin. It is a no-loss situation, as long as we are a nation that can run its tax system properly. That is why I have been particularly assiduous in looking at the deal where Queensland was going to give a royalty holiday to Adani. This is an issue that this courageous—in this circumstance—Labor Premier staked her career on, at the risk of being taken apart by very ambitious Deputy Premier. But she stood by her guns and said that every other major project has had royalty holidays and concessions in some shape or form. We do it because the global public good is greater. We know that the long-term interest is there. It is a complex calculation. It is beyond GetUp! and the click campaigns. But it is an important consideration for long-term employment, because we know that coal is not going to disappear tomorrow.
This fairly large diversion in this speech of mine is to point out that this federal Labor leader is just running the 'Get Labor Up!' line, which is completely different to the state Labor Premier, and he could not care less. There is no ideological connection here to his party. It is just what works best for the polls. There are lots of people in marginal seats who love the GetUp! click campaign, and this Leader of the Opposition is going to click away with them. But it does not stop there. It does not just stop at same-sex marriage. It does not stop at the NDIS, where we supported the Labor government to raise the Medicare levy because it works right across the board, paying according to need into a service that every one of us could require one day and be grateful for. We had that understanding in opposition. We just said we understand that the NDIS is above all of this. But here is a Labor leader who is now utterly unable to support precisely what he did in government just four years ago. We are not talking amnesic periods of time. We are not talking decades or making comparisons to the Whitlam era. This is the same bloke who was a minister. This entire chamber spoke right here and said, 'We need to raise the Medicare levy as the fairest way to fund something that everybody needs.' It is beyond this individual's ability to do the same thing that he did four years ago: support the same tax change with the same graduations and the same exemptions based on income. It is as if he just was not here four years ago, as if he was not even part of the debate when we followed his government in supporting the NDIS. This is the NDIS, for goodness' sake. We are not funding a chook raffle. This is the most important social intervention in a generation, and one that we give credit to the Labor Party for initiating. Are we in a world now where you just oppose absolutely everything, simply because it is going to be politically useful for your career, personally? We are a better parliament than that.
It does not stop there. It is also about the enterprise agreements. This is a Labor leader who was the architect of enterprise agreements that left up to half of the participants worse off. I understand that an enterprise agreement is a global agreement where some are slightly better off and some are slightly worse off. But Labor Party appointed Fair Work commissioners sign most of them off—120 of them. Then along comes a decision by the Fair Work umpire, four of the five of whom are actually Labor Party appointed, and he pulls up stumps and runs away the minute it comes in. We did not set up the Fair Work Commission. We did not appoint the participants. As soon as this huge amount of work is done by experts in the field, this Labor leader just cannot wait to rush away and oppose the decision. I could understand if it were just political convenience, but this is an individual who hand-designed enterprise agreements that left workers worse off. A piece of evidence is Penny Vickers, who worked late nights stacking shelves and realised she did not even get the award. This is a deal done by unions with big business. This is precisely the job description of the bloke who is now the Leader of the Opposition, who suddenly only hates an enterprise agreement if it is one not done by the union. If the union is involved, it is completely okay to leave workers worse off. We estimate there are around 250,000 Australians worse off due to the actions of a union—out to $300 million of lost wages.
Some EAs are worse than others. Coles is the one that leads, because of the nature of Coles' employment practices. They simply use more people in a position that could be worse off in late night and after-hours employment. But they are not the only guilty party. They all signed up. It appears to be well meaning, but they signed a piece of paper saying, 'No worker was worse off.' The signature is on the piece of paper. That is now being tested in the Federal Court.
My only issue here is that you cannot make a massive issue about a tiny enterprise agreement signed by a small sporting club in Queensland, rip out one worker when every other one of the 40 workers are happily employed and no worse off and make some ambit claim that you are thousands of dollars worth off. You cannot then bring this young woman down to parliament, parade her around this building, do press conferences and, when asked how you can prove that she is thousands of dollars worse off, respond with: 'We took her statement at face value. We did not check the pay sheets. We did not read the agreement and see it was signed off by a Labor New South Wales appointee to the Fair Work Commission.' You cannot exist in a world where there is no evidence to back up what you say.
My point is quite simply this: where precisely does this Leader of the Opposition stand on social policy? It is one thing to have an MBA—the great degree that no-one can fail—but, ultimately, you have to be able to have some discipline and say: 'Does this really stack up with Labor values or not?' If the Labor value is simply to oppose everything that is ever said by the other side, I can understand where you are heading. But we are going to keep rolling out what was said four years ago and contrasting it to what is said today, because you know what, Deputy Speaker—and I respect the difficult position I have put you in—Australians just want straight talk. They do not want to see someone who flips on their tail every time it, not gets tough, so much—I can understand that, as we all can be guilty occasionally of being seen to flip when it gets tough and we get hit with a blowtorch—because this is not tough at all. This is the NDIS. How hard is it to simply say, 'On these grounds, and we have done it before, we will wave that one through with pride.' We will hold our hands above our heads and say, 'We are delighted, as an opposition, to support it.' That is how easy it was to have a fully funded NDIS, but we are still not there yet.
This war on young people, which we increasingly hear has been qualitatively focus group tested and runs very well—getting young people to get upset. Fundamentally, young people have never had such fantastic access to bulk-billed pathology. Young people have never had such high levels of bulk-billing. They are now approaching over 85 per cent for GP practices, over 78 per cent specifically for seeing GPs and well into 83 per cent for all Medicare billing.
In the university debate we are increasingly hearing about how four per cent of tertiary education is funded. It is either funded by the person who gets the degree or it is funded by the taxpayer. Of course, this is where Labor is really torn: 'These students are our cup of tea and our bread and butter. They all roll up and vote for us, so, of course, we have to oppose any change that allows students to pay more.' But the bottom line is: what is the private capital good of a degree? It is worth millions of dollars for a number of degrees. But for most people they are way better off having a university degree than not. You do not pay a cent on the way through until, income contingent, it is paid back afterwards. It is awkward to listen to isn't it? In reality we are debating about if four per cent is paid for by the person who gets the degree when they earn the big bucks. If you do not earn the big bucks, you do not pay it back. It is quite simple—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr LAMING: I accept that interjection—$42,000 is not fair. But currently it is $38,000. We are debating the final four, which represents a six or seven per cent increase on the cost of a degree, and whether it is paid for by the person who gets it or by the family that never gets their child into university. I think fundamentally there has to be some element on the way through of paying for the private benefit of your degree. It is a debate that we accept. We are quite happy for the Labor opposition to say, 'No, these degrees are so important they need to be paid for by the taxpayer.' I am happy to hear that debate and exactly how they justify it, but I suspect that we will not.
Lastly, in this budget there are home savings proposals for young, potential homeowners trying to get their first home. You will see that what you can do is pay additional amounts through your superannuation, an existing structure, into a savings account that has a 30 per cent tax discount when that money is taken out. That was a response to potential homeowners saying, 'I've got the salary. We've got the earning capacity to fund a loan. We just can't get the deposit.' So the solution is to help that small cohort get that deposit together as quickly as possible.
But, of course, Labor gets most exasperated from their urban seats, where prices look very high. Every weekend they go to auctions and they roll their eyes and say, 'No, no. We've got to hit capital gains tax; we've got to hit negative gearing.' It is as if they have never visited a regional town where you are flat out selling your place. Let's go to Goulburn or let's go to—
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr LAMING: I will take your interjection. Capital gains is the issue. Let's go out and hit a retiring couple trying to sell their home in Moranbah and find their way back to Brisbane where they can retire close to where the kids work. You are just going to knock negative gearing and capital gains tax. That is the one element, the one piece of reward, for holding onto an asset for a period of time. When you are from the inner city and goat cheese is on the menu, it is quite easy to take that view. But, when we deliver policy, we need to recognise that home affordability is heterogeneous problem. It is very different very close to the CBD. It is very different in the outer sprawl where we are developing new homes and we are very reliant on state governments and councils. And it is very different again in regional Australia where—do you know what?—there is no housing affordability issue whatsoever. The last thing that this government will do is allow the Labor Party to come into power and attack those people in the regions for whom buying and selling a house can mean the difference between retiring close to kids or being stuck where you are miles away from them.
At every level we just want to see some clarity from the Leader of the Opposition. It is a gratuitous point that I make, but, if you want to understand why the individual is tracking so poorly despite the party doing so well, increasingly, you have to do what you say and say what you do.
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (12:01): I rise to speak on one aspect of the government's recent budget: the $5.3 billion commitment to construct an airport in Western Sydney. They say there is a business plan. It is not public, and I have not seen it. But with a commercial operator choosing to walk away from the project, there would want to be a rigorous plan for something that is going to take $5.3 billion of taxpayer funds over the next decade. There is no transparency on how that figure has been arrived at, nor on what exactly it will deliver. I am not aware of any other single infrastructure project of this size. The only thing that really compares is the NBN, and do not get me started on that.
I am curious about what sort of airport this government is planning to build. There are so many different versions of what it might be. When those in my electorate, especially those in the Blue Mountains, are worried about noise, we are dismissed and told, 'You won't notice.' When we are worried about noise at night, we are reassured there will not be that many flights and they will be able to avoid residential areas. At the same time, we are told that the need for an airport in Sydney to operate 24 hours a day is desperate, urgent. If that is the case, yet there are not that many planes wanting to come in at night, surely a more economic solution would be to allow those few flights to use Sydney Airport. Or perhaps there really are a large number of flights desperate to land at two, three or four o'clock in the morning, in which case, how exactly is that going to work without disturbing residents in Western Sydney? In the same breath as we are being told that we will not notice the noise because airplanes are quieter now, we are told that it will be mainly low-cost carriers and freight that will want to use Western Sydney Airport, and they do not have the latest and greatest aircraft. Qantas CEO Alan Joyce has the view that Badgerys Creek needs to be built as a low-cost airport, with facilities suited to these budget carriers. 'It can't be a Taj Mahal,' he has said, 'It has to be cheaper than Kingsford Smith.'
On the other hand, we hear that this is an opportunity to build a state-of-the-art, eco-friendly, super quiet, super smart airport that will lead the world in environmental standards, in spite of the fact that the EIS does not demand state of the art. We are told that it will create tens of thousands of jobs, yet apparently there are not enough people to justify a rail line. We are told that there will be huge benefits for all of Western Sydney while in the same breath we are told that many of the people who work there will live within 30 minutes of the airport—this idealised 30-minute city—without public transport. We are told Badgerys Creek is ideal because no-one lives there, yet the government is talking about building a new city, a third city, an aeropolis, at one end of the runway—or maybe at both ends. Perhaps this is where the people who will work at Badgerys will live. How does that benefit the rest of Western Sydney? Why wasn't that been assessed as part of the environmental impact statement?
We are told that it will create some sort of economic boon, with benefits flowing throughout all of Western Sydney. At the same time, it seems that future defence industry jobs will be sucked out of my electorate at RAAF Base Richmond and into the new whiz-bang precinct at Badgerys. We are told that Western Sydney wants it, yet none of the business people driving this over many years seem to live in Western Sydney. But they know what is good for us! Sydney Airport does not want to build it, but we are told that investors all over the place are itching to get their hands on it. In spite of that, the government is not going to offer it to any of them but will build it itself—gifted, as we know it is, in completing construction projects on time and on budget.
My region of the Blue Mountains has been told there will be huge economic benefits with a massive influx of tourists. But there is no planned investment in local roads or in local infrastructure. We are told that there will be tons of consultation about the flight paths, yet the runway direction is set, and contracts for works are due to be done by the end of the year. We are told that it will have no impact on World Heritage in the fragile Blue Mountains landscape, yet we are also told that it will be as big as Heathrow and will operate 24 hours a day, with 100 per cent of incoming flights needing to traverse the Blue Mountains. And city politicians and businesspeople want it to funnel people into the CBD, rather than improving Western Sydney public transport. So is it an airport that gets people into Sydney, or is it for Western Sydney? Are they building an airport to service the people of Western Sydney where they develop it with Western Sydney, or are they building an airport to flog off to the highest bidder to make money on the back of Western Sydney? Let's unpack some of these contradictions and questions.
I look for equity in things, and lack of equity is at the heart of the make-up of the Western Sydney Airport forum known as FOWSA—rhymes with 'wowser'! It is charged with being the key community consultation process for flight path design, according to the government's own documents. Let's look at the community forum for Sydney Airport. It includes 11 federal MPs, including the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Urban Infrastructure. To be clear, the minister is not there in his capacity as minister but as the member for Bradfield. In fact, SACF includes a spot for every local federal member whose electorate aircraft flies over, including those on the Upper North Shore. So, in fairness, do we see the same make-up for Western Sydney's forum? Yeah, right! There are two federal MPs and one senator—two!—whereas, by my calculations, there are around 11 seats that will be impacted by new or changed aircraft noise, none more so than the now tranquil Blue Mountains, which is set to be subjected to 100 per cent of the flights coming in to the airport 24 hours a day.
It is therefore disappointing that two very strong Blue Mountains nominees for community reps for FOWSA were overlooked. Peter Dollin, current president of the residents' action group, RAWSA, and Jon Rickards, a long-time member of the Blue Mountains Conservation Society, both have serious fears for the impacts of the airport. However, both were willing to contribute their professional expertise to the process. Peter, a long-time director for a global firm, and John, a retired school principal and science teacher, would have brought an ability to analyse and digest the technical information required by FOWSA and also had ready-made communication links to the active Blue Mountains community. To leave them both off FOWSA, when my electorate has been the most vocal in expressing its concerns about the airport plan—with 80 per cent of the nearly 5,000 responses to the EIS coming from the Blue Mountains—is a disgrace. So if you are looking to not only be fair about this community consultation process but also be seen to be fair, this government is failing on both counts.
The west is being told that there will be an economic benefit coming from the planned airport. I have no doubt that somebody is going to make a lot of money. Certainly landowners who have previously grazed cattle will be seeing dollar signs. But I question what economic benefits will flow for my electorate. Defence giant Northrop Grumman has just announced that it will set up at the Badgerys site—possibly good for the southwest, although it would be nice to see them pay some tax! But Blue Mountains councillor Don McGregor has already raised concerns about how irresistible our Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage valleys could be to these makers of drones for flight testing.
But my concern lies predominantly with the implications of the government's announcement of a high-tech defence and aerospace precinct at the Western Sydney Airport site. We already have an investment of defence industries at Richmond RAAF base. Northrop Grumman already has a significant presence at Richmond through its depot-level maintenance, repair and modification of C-130H Hercules aircraft. But what is the future? The Hercs are expected to last until 2030/2035. After that, who knows what will replace them or where those aircraft will be based?
It is no secret that Defence has had questions for decades about the long-term role of the RAAF base at Richmond, with Air Marshal Leo Davies' comments last year reigniting that issue. What I think is concerning timing is that the Hercs' anticipated end of life coincides with the early years of operation of the planned Badgerys, yet there is no discussion about this by the government. When it talks about the economy of the west, it cannot ignore the rest of the west, including the Hawkesbury. Richmond is perfectly placed for an expanding defence industries role. In fact, that could provide the Hawkesbury with the long-term economic driver that it craves.
With the allure of the shiny new Badgerys site, what is the future for Richmond or other parts of Western Sydney? Are we doomed to see all new economic activity sucked into the Badgerys vortex? Let's look at the jobs projections. The information to date is confusing at the very least. We have the federal Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation, Angus Taylor, talking about a city deal that will transform the lives of Western Sydney's two million residents through an aerotropolis that will offer, he says, tens of thousands of jobs. In his budget night speech, the Treasurer said the new airport would create 20,000 jobs by the early 2030s. However, data from the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development says that by the 2030s the airport is expected to provide 9,000 direct jobs and over 4,000 in on-site business parks. That adds up to 13,000. That is a difference of 7,000 from the Treasurer's own figures. And we are talking about the 2030s, maybe 15 years away. The expectation that a 25-year-old unemployed person in Windsor will suddenly have work coming out of their ears thanks to Western Sydney Airport is a total myth. They will be 40 before the place is operational, and even then there will be no train to catch to get to work. The jobs are merely being shifted from other parts of Sydney—the EIS talks about that and the Northrop Grumman announcement is an example of it. Many jobs could be created without a slab of tarmac as their centrepiece.
Where do robotics and automation fit into this equation? Surely a high-tech precinct will demand a high-tech airport; what would be the point otherwise? What are the consequences for job numbers at an airport where a human being need not be involved in the entire process from check-in to baggage handling to any other routine customer service interactions? This is not the future; this is the now at many airports around the world. Which will it be for Western Sydney Airport: jobs heavy or automation heavy?
Where do the headlines of a jobs boom and a new city in the west leave existing residents of the west? Will we see two Western Sydneys? It has never been a homogenous place, and I do not know why people who very clearly comprehend the difference between the inner west, the inner city, the Eastern Suburbs and the North Shore—in other words, the east of Sydney—assume that we are all the same. But will this create a glitzy, ritzy enclave that works and plays in a flash, high-tech new city, and what will that mean for old Western Sydney? I cannot speak for all of Western Sydney; I would not presume to. But I can speak for my part of Western Sydney—that is, the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury. We do not want all of the downside and none of the upside, and right now the downside is all I can see.
Given what I have said, it is understandable that I remain unconvinced of the upside of this project, so let's just recap the downside. There will be the noise, day and night, of a 24-hour airport across some of the quietest parts of our nation, the World Heritage Blue Mountains and heading north through the Hawkesbury. There will be the visual disturbance. Right now you can stand at Echo Point and not see a plane, but that may not be what the future holds. Of course, we will not know this until flight paths are determined, and even then it will not cover holding patterns. There is the unknown pollution impact over time for the World Heritage area. There has been no way to even assess what the impact might be. There is potentially the sucking away of Defence industries from RAAF Base Richmond. That would be a real economic blow to my community.
There are no rail links for people in the Blue Mountains or Hawkesbury to get to the airport. According to the government, they are not interested. There are not even the extra benefits that a north-south rail line would bring whether or not we had an airport. That alone would be an economic boon for our communities and allow people to access jobs in a different part of the city, instead of all being funnelled into the CBD. There will be more traffic on the M4, already one of the most congested roads we have. There are no planned upgrades for the M4. The only upgrade planned for Blue Mountains roads is an intersection at Glenbrook. That is something that has been on the cards for a really long time, but this government has linked it to Western Sydney Airport. It is an upgrade that should have happened whether or not we had an airport.
There is nothing to help the Blue Mountains capitalise on this supposedly new boom in tourism. We are struggling to understand why tourists would want to come to the Blue Mountains—perhaps to watch the planes fly overhead—other than for the reasons they come now, which is for peace and quiet, something you do not get in the city but something you can get as you cross the Nepean and head up into the mountains.
So, really, the question on all of this remains. When people ask me why the Blue Mountains in particular is opposed to the plans for this airport, it comes down to the question: who is being put first here? We certainly do not feel that our communities are having any say in this: you do not put our people on your community forum, you do not give us a way of consulting and you make claims that have no evidence and are not able to be backed up, and you tell us to be grateful. Unfortunately, the approach this government is taking is not one that my community believes is the right approach.
Ultimately, it comes down to this: at what point do we put communities first, people first? If this government and this parliament fail to provide the right plan and then the rigor and scrutiny that a project of this impact warrants—before it is built and not while it is being built—then I have no doubt that we will be rightly condemned by future generations who call the west home.
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (12:16): The budget is always such a highlight in the political calendar, and also that of the journalists. There is a buzz of anticipation because most of it is stashed behind closed doors so that there is no unintended economic benefit for some small sectors whose whole life and livelihood is based on the turn of a shareholding or industry investment. I wonder if everyday Aussies understand that that is the real reason behind the secretive stealth of budget information release.
Perhaps we should explain that a little more clearly for those who do not live and breathe politics, and that actually is the majority of people. You do not need to know much about hospitals until you or somebody is ill. You do not need to know much about the Defence Force, the veterans or the need for investment, or why we even have a defence force, unless you are connected in some way. Most Aussies do not really care how Centrelink is funded. They just want to know that if they need that support it will be there for them, and people are ripping off the government will try to stop that happening.
Most people do not understand just how the economy works. They just want to know that they have a chance of getting and keeping a job, getting training, earning a living and maybe at some stage buying a house and, eventually, either living off their own retirement earnings or being supported by a government pension. As a result it is really difficult to explain things in the budget when most people say, 'And how does that affect me?' While I understand the need for people to see how a budget affects them, it is truly important for everyone to see how a budget affects everyone else as well. Most of us have been brought up on the concept of looking after our own family and the home we have or want. But we do not live on an island that has no relationship to the island of our neighbours or our fellow Australians. We are networked and co-dependent in so many ways and we often do not see the web of connection let alone realise it is critical impact, both now and in the future.
We have all heard the line and the criticism that the coalition government understands that the best form of welfare is a job, and it actually is. People feel better about themselves if they are working: it is great to talk to others, our self-confidence builds and we become a better part of the infrastructure build of our nation. When we are working and paying tax we are each delivering our small share of railway and road building, medical funds and education funds. Every working Australian is helping every other one in this small but terribly important way. Right now there are more Australians in full-time work than ever before. Since we came to office employment has increased by 600,000. Today, a record 12 million Australians are in employment.
Part of the budget is allocated to making sure that working-age Australians remain on a path towards employment. There is significant additional funding directed to support services that build jobseekers' self-reliance. This, of course, is balanced by making sure those who are not helping their fellow Aussies, and who persistently game the welfare system will face appropriate penalties.
Some of the stand-out initiatives include the national expansion of ParentsNext, which will assist approximately 68,000 parents of young children at risk of long-term welfare dependency each year. The program assists parents to plan and prepare for employment when their children start school. The expansion will also see 20 additional ParentsNext locations established to directly target support for Indigenous parenting payment recipients. To assist older Australians, we have allocated money towards increased support for training and reskilling, work experience opportunities and building further links with employers.
The coalition government's Youth Jobs PaTH Program will help our young Aussies develop key employability skills through training and internships. While this was announced last year, it is only now that our local businesses can really test the water and trial such employment opportunities so we can fine-tune the operations. We have already got a number of job search providers and possible employers gearing up for this initiative.
No boss will ever take on a worker unless there is a genuine belief that things are going to get better in the economy and the state of Australia. We choose to focus on investing in infrastructure and in particular to secure more and better-paying jobs. We choose to fund essential services for Australians. Part of this means that we have to take practical action to stop the deficit and the growth of our debt and to do all we can to keep our AAA credit rating. Simply, this is important because it is about the costs of borrowing money from other nations. If our banks have to pay more for their money, then our dream of buying a house will become more and more distant.
We have strategies to help small businesses, with a reduced company rate of tax, easier GST payments and another year of instant asset write-offs. We are going to be even more tough on multinationals. We are going to begin the process of making the big banks more accountable, especially the bank executives. It is absolutely time, and I am sure everyone agrees, even those who are bank shareholders, because the impact of this policy on banks is important but not enough to damage the shareholders, despite the rhetoric that is being communicated at present.
In the budget we are delivering a commitment to guarantee Medicare and build the world's best health system. Let us imagine the whole issue of health is like a timber table—solid and dependable, leaning on four solid legs. It is a good image for our long-term national health plan, which is the table top. The legs are: guaranteeing Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, supporting hospitals, prioritising mental and preventative health, and investing in medical research. There is 10 billion bucks in a package to invest in Australia's health system.
Medicare funding will increase by $2.4 billion over the next four years, including $1 billion to get rid of the Medicare rebate freeze. Another 60,000 patients at risk of chronic heart failure will benefit from the listing of new drugs. Medicines Australia will work with the government, and $1.8 billion of new drugs will come in over the next five years.
There is $10.8 million to fight childhood cancer and this includes $1.4 million for paediatric brain cancer clinical trials, $4.4 million for Cancer Australia and $68 million for a proton beam therapy facility. Having met some of the most beautiful families over the last four years, this funding for childhood brain cancer is most welcome. I have seen some of the rarest cancers that did not even have a name. I have seen the strength of those families as they have battled to enjoy every precious moment, knowing that time was running out.
We are continuing to significantly increase current medical research, with $1.4 billion under the Medical Research Future Fund. Every day we see the impact of neurological diseases like Parkinson's, motor neurone disease, multiple sclerosis and other diseases like stroke. Every dollar of well-directed research is a dollar well spent for Australians and our nation. It is our Aussie network working again.
I particularly commend the $5.5 billion extension of the funding arrangement for the Commonwealth Home Support Program over two years from 1 July 2018, which covers services such as Meals on Wheels. Again I thank all those advocates throughout Gilmore who helped me work with Minister Fifield and Minister Wyatt to get this to happen.
Having been able to listen to the planning for the NDIS well before the 2013 election, I knew the scheme originally did not include those affected with mental health issues or those diagnosed with a disability due to mental health, so it came as no surprise at all to learn that Labor left the scheme only half funded. Dare I be a tad political here, it seems to be a pattern of funding commitments from Labor—say whatever and never mind how the program is funded; 'Someone else can take care of that or we will get it from somewhere else.'
We will be delivering a disability package to give certainty to people living with a disability, their families and carers that they will receive high-quality services and are protected. A 0.5 per cent increase in the Medicare levy from 1 July 2019 will, once and for all, ensure that Labor's NDIS funding gap is filled. This is critical. I cannot imagine how hard it must be for people caring for those with a disability to be so concerned about support. We are a nation that cares, and we now have an opportunity to show exactly that. I just hope the opposition sees sense and stops the rubbish and nonsense.
We will finally have a comprehensive reform of working-age welfare payments, which will deliver a single, new, job seeker payment, replacing seven existing payments, including Newstart, which will encourage more people to transition to work. There will be a new, independent national body, the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, to oversee the delivery of quality and of safe services for all participants. Thank goodness! So many who are already dealing with the NDIS are concerned, and there is even more wariness where the NDIS is yet to be rolled out.
I turn now to issues that seem to be causing some confusion. For the past 12 months, some people, dressed in green—no, not leprechauns; me—have been pushing hard for an increase in funding for education, for more than the amount initially put forward in 2014. For two years we have been developing avenues to fund increases to education without blowing the budget. Now we have done exactly that, and Labor keeps harking back to the imaginary figures from before the 2013 budget. Yet where were they? They were completely unfunded. I guess that is where the leprechaun comes in. They were going to fund it with the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. We are focused on great education. We are going to ensure that all children have 15 hours of preschool education before they get to school, there is not a single member of the House who does not acknowledge how important that is. We are promising and are committed to long-term funding certainty for every Australian school, and that means for every Australian student, with an increase of $18.6 billion over the next decade that will be distributed according to a real needs based model, not a mishmash of different deals. It is now time to focus on how those educational outcomes will be changed, not just on dumping money into the school and hoping for the best. David Gonski himself will be leading that review. I for one look forward to his very educative response.
A growing workforce is critical for our future Australia. In the dying days of the 2013 Labor government, all the employer incentives for taking on an apprentice were removed. We have seen a slippery slope of apprenticeship reduction since then, so I am very keen to see the introduction of the Skilling Australians Fund, with over $1.5 billion in the next four years to create an extra 300,000 apprenticeships. In fact, I cannot wait. With just the small challenge that we put forward at the beginning of this year, between January and March, we gained a 25 per cent increase in the sign up of apprentices and trainees. The Skilling Australians Fund will deliver opportunities for young people and ensure our economic growth. I hope to see very real outcomes in dealing with this type of government support.
In Gilmore, we have a Navy base, HMAS Albatross, and just next door there is HMAS Creswell. In addition, we have a large contingent of veterans and their families. I am always conscious of them, of the service they have given and of the special care, sometimes, that each and every one of them deserves and we owe them. That is why I am especially proud to note that the budget is continuing to expand the services that current and former ADF members can access to ensure they receive the help and support they need. This simply means we are taking on significant and overdue reform of the processes used by DVA, to make sure that support for veterans is our highest priority.
We will be commemorating significant events of the centenary of Anzac, which will conclude in 2018. All our veterans, historians and locals will be involved in the process. I am really pleased to see that there will be a significant increase to extend treatment under the non-liability healthcare arrangements to all mental health conditions for our service men and women. I wish that was not unnecessary, I really do, but we need to recognise that these days that $9.8 million to pilot a new approach to prevent suicide is critical. Battles, these days, are far more impactful than ever before, and we are seeing how war and combat are changing our service men and women in ways that the rest of us can only imagine. When you talk to service men and women in their battle uniform, when they are training you to do the ops of putting tourniquets on thighs in case of unexploded device and you learn how to do it tightly and they say, 'Yep, you could save a life by doing that,' when you talk to these amazing men and women and look at all the work they do, when you are in Afghanistan, you see the risk and the fear on their face when they get into a helicopter knowing that a sniper on land could bring that helicopter down. They are always alert and always aware. Living in that space all the time, with that risk to them, puts an inordinate amount of stress on these men and women. It is something that is far from being recognised. In the past, there would be a battle. Some people would lose their lives and some people would be injured. Then there would be a rest time. There is no rest time for our service men and women now. They are always alert. This takes a toll on their mental health.
I am so pleased that we are going to be looking into that and taking care of our veterans. It is unbelievably significant and terribly important. For my Vietnam War veterans who have yet to come to terms with the experience that they unfortunately lived through and remain living through, I extend to them my deepest regards and hope that they take up these initiatives and get this funding spent on them because they are just an amazing group of people.
This budget addresses all of the most important issues that relate to people living in Gilmore—health, education, defence, costs of living and social wellbeing, especially including mental health. They are all funded. These are not imaginary dollars. Every single program has a dollar amount that goes with it, so we know with certainty they will happen.
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (12:31): I am pleased to make a contribution on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018 and related bills and draw to the attention of the House the coalition's appalling economic management and their complete neglect of the region and electorate that I represent. The Labor Party have publicly committed to supporting supply to ensure the continuation of vital government services. Whenever I speak on the appropriation bills, I always draw to the attention of the House that it is a historical fact that the coalition are Australia's constitutional vandals. The party that seek to portray themselves as the great protectors of the Westminster convention's provisions are in fact the ones who are prepared to savage the whole concept of responsible government. The party with the majority in the lower house, which the Whitlam government had, is entitled to govern. For blatant political purposes, the coalition parties block supply. I will always remind my colleagues who sit on the benches opposite of this important historical fact. When they talk about our Westminster inheritance and the constitutional monarchy, they need to be called out on the history of the political party that they represent.
I now want to update the House on the coalition's appalling economic record since coming to office in 2013. There is a very misguided narrative in some parts of the media that the coalition are superior economic managers. Nothing could be further from the truth, and the economic indicators for the Turnbull and Abbott governments speak for themselves. Economic growth is down, wages growth is down and, in fact, wages are going backwards and unemployment is up. The gross debt equates to $20,000 for every Australian man, woman and child. One of the most startling facts is the budget deficit. The coalition won office in 2013 saying there was a debt and deficit crisis and only they could fix it. The member for Warringah and the now Ambassador to the United States said to the people, 'Elect the coalition and everything will be fine.' In fact, they promised a budget surplus in their first year and every year thereafter. Well, the deficit today is 10 times bigger than they projected it would be when they delivered their first budget. It totally dispels the notion that the coalition are better economic managers. These appropriation bills provide $21 billion in tax increases. Every Australian is paying for the coalition's fiscal failures.
We all know the coalition have recently discovered that the fair go is fundamentally important to Australians. They found this out from commissioning a focus group to tell them. The Australian Labor Party and the wider Labor movement do not need a focus group to tell us this. It is our abiding aim to ensure economic and social justice for all Australians.
The most striking point about the budget is that the Prime Minister and Treasurer declared it as 'fair', and yet it is not. That is a blatant untruth. It is a budget that increases the Medicare levy for nearly all taxpayers and gives a tax cut to millionaires. It is a budget that increases the pension age to 70. It is a budget that cuts $366 a year from new pensioners, and it is a budget that cuts $22 billion from schools and makes it more expensive to get a tertiary education. One any measure, this is not a fair budget.
The government should not just take my word on the complete lack of fairness in this budget. I recently held a series of budget forums around my electorate, and I want to take this opportunity to thank all those who attended. In the question-and-answer sessions, there was a clear consensus that this budget fails the fairness test. I was asked questions relating to a variety of different policies, ranging from investment in schools and universities, support for renewable energy and action on climate change, and support for jobs and vocational education. Those opposite should know that none of my constituents who attended the forums indicated that they supported the government's budget.
Parents and grandparents want their children and grandchildren to get the best start in life, with a world-class education. They believe in needs based funding for schools and were outraged that the Liberals are cutting $22 billion from schools. In Shortland, public schools will lose over $17 million in the next two years alone. People understand that this will have an impact on our schools and communities. My constituents also noted that tertiary education is so important for so many in our rapidly changing economy and that the substantial increases in fees will deter many from study. This is incredibly significant in my home region. The University of Newcastle is a world-class educational institution. We have the best engineering faculties in the entire nation. We train more Indigenous doctors than the rest of the university system put together. Approximately 50 per cent of our students are mature age. Studies both here and internationally have shown that an increase in fees deters mature-age and part-time students more than most. So my region, with its higher level of mature-age students, will be deterred greater than most by this attack on our university system, which will be worsened by the $3.8 billion in cuts to universities.
The Hunter region has a proud history of mining and manufacturing. The people I represent know the fundamental importance of government support for vocational education and are very aware that the Liberals at both federal and state levels have completely gutted this sector since coming to government. My constituents want young people to have the opportunity to learn a trade at TAFE. They know that conservatives do not care about vocational education and training. This year alone they are cutting a further $600 million from TAFE. This builds on the $1½ billion they have ripped away from this sector since coming to power in 2013.
On this point of support for manufacturing, I want to join with my state Labor colleagues in condemning the New South Wales state government for awarding the contract for the next intercity train fleet to a Korean company, when these trains could have been built in the Hunter. If the Liberals were really serious about jobs and growth, they would not be awarding these contracts to overseas manufacturing plants. You only have to look at what is happening in Victoria, where the Andrews Labor government is reinvigorating its train-manufacturing sector by awarding contracts to local firms.
At the budget forums, I was also asked about government support for renewable energy. Again, parents and grandparents know that decisive action on climate change is vital for the future of their children and grandchildren not just in making sure that the environment is as of good quality in the future as it is now. It is also about making sure that there are jobs for our kids and grandkids. Unfortunately, I had to advise attendees that the government completely ignored renewable energy and action on climate change in the budget. There was not one mention of climate change in the Treasurer's speech, shamefully, and, in fact, there was no additional funding for the centrepiece of the government's laughable climate change policy, the Emissions Reduction Fund, which is due to run out of funding very shortly. We know the reason for this is that the Prime Minister is beholden to the flat-earthers in the radical right wing of the coalition, whose support is necessary for his tenuous grip on the leadership. Again, I want to thank all of those who attended the budget forums. I really enjoyed receiving feedback from my constituents about their concerns and priorities in the week after the budget. I intend to make sure these forums are an annual event.
I will go now to the broader issues around commitment to the Hunter. Labor's commitment to the Hunter is deep, historical and demonstrated, whereas the coalition's complete disregard for the region is also on display. During the last two terms of the last Labor government, there was massive Commonwealth investment in the Hunter region. Labor funded the $1.2 billion Hunter Expressway, a fantastic piece of infrastructure so important to the region's productivity and growth. Labor invested hundreds of millions of dollars in school infrastructure at the time of the global financial crisis. The Liberals always attack this investment, but the reality is that this investment not only provided schools in Shortland and the Hunter region with fantastic new facilities but also kept tens of thousands of people in my region in jobs at the time of the global recession. The response of the Labor government during the GFC is held out globally as world's best practice. It kept 800,000 people from losing their jobs and it massively added to the infrastructure of my region. Many schools in my area had not received new infrastructure since the 1950s. They received great pieces of infrastructure at the time of the GFC.
The last Labor government also provided $40 million for the Newcastle Institute for Energy and Resources, a great institution doing world's best research into energy and resources. We also provided $30 million to build a new economics and law campus for the University of Newcastle in town, which is almost due to open. Labor also provided $50 million to the Hunter Medical Research Institute for their fantastic new headquarters. The HMRI are world leaders in medical research, and I am proud that we supported the important work they do. We also provided $13 million to Lake Macquarie City Council to begin the first stage of construction for the Lake Macquarie Transport Interchange.
These investments are clear examples of Labor's commitment to and belief in the Hunter Region, and they also stand in stark contrast to the coalition's approach. The Liberals have completely neglected my electorate in the Hunter since coming to office. Not only have they refused to further support the construction of the next stage of the Lake Macquarie Transport Interchange; they in fact cut funding to the first stage. They cut funding by $1 million and have also made it harder for local governments to fund necessary infrastructure by freezing the indexation of the financial assistance grants, a $13 million cut to my local councils.
The Liberals' approach the Hunter Region is summed up well by the former and much unlamented Liberal member for Paterson. At a previous election, in discussing why the Newcastle Knights were overlooked for funding for an upgrade to their stadium, he blatantly stated in the media that if more people voted for the Liberals then the Hunter Region would benefit more. He was effectively holding the region to ransom: 'Either vote Liberals or do not receive any funding.' This is the complete opposite to the principles of good governance, where you fund based on need and policy justification, not on blatant pork-barrelling. Unfortunately, this approach remains the case today for the Liberal Party in both federal and state politics.
A great test for that will be the upcoming New South Wales state budget, where I fear again that the Liberal government will ignore the vital need to invest in the Lake Macquarie Transport Interchange. This project is the most important project for the entire region. All 11 Hunter councils have agreed this is the most important project, and getting 11 councils to agree on anything is a formidable achievement, especially when the project is located solely in one council area. This project will unlock massive growth in my region. For a comparatively low level of government investment, it will generate, for every dollar of government investment, $94 of private sector investment. It will lead to the creation of 10,000 private sector jobs and it really will open up the region. The fact that Liberal governments, both state and federal, continue to ignore its need is a crime, and I do not say that lightly. It is a crime. It is neglecting my region. They continue to waste money on pork-barrelling, including $1 million for a billy cart track further up the coast, but they will not fund the Glendale transport interchange, which would have such a massive benefit for my region.
I want to return to schools, very briefly. The power of the needs based funding reforms are already having a massive impact on my region. I think of schools like Lake Munmorah Public School, which talks about the early additional funding providing quality training for teachers so that they can provide great education for students. I think of Warners Bay High School, where they are using the additional money to put on extra tutors to lift the literacy and numeracy skills of the 25 per cent of students who are performing the worst so that they do not fall behind. Once you fall behind in years 7 and 8, it is enormously hard to catch up by year 12. St Pius X Primary School in Windale is the poorest school in the entire state. The poorest school in the entire state exists in my electorate. It is a Catholic school, and it is benefiting enormously from the early years of needs based funding. For a school of only 50 students it was able to put on two additional teachers to give those kids the best start in life. That is at stake with this government's $22 billion of cuts to education funds. This is at stake because of the coalition's lies before the 2013 election and their continuing mistruths about how they support needs based funding. But all we have seen is them cut $30 billion in 2014. Now they say it is only going to be a $22 billion cut, but it demonstrates a complete lack of commitment to education not just in my region but in the entire country.
So it is very important that we are debating these appropriation bills. We have so many priorities for this nation. Unfortunately, this budget fails all of them. If we look at infrastructure, it is a budget of smoke and mirrors. It is a budget that cuts $7½ billion from infrastructure funding against a 10-year average—not just against Labor's funding—for infrastructure financing this budget cuts $7½ billion. This budget committed to not a single new project. The much vaunted $10 billion rail fund has zero details behind it. It has zero information about how state governments can access it. If this was an infrastructure budget I would hate to see one that was not focused on that, because it is a horrible budget for infrastructure.
Even today, we have seen startling revelations that in spite of the so-called unfreeze of the Medicare rebate indexation most of the services will still remain frozen. That will place even more pressure on our health system. This budget fails the economic test and it fails the fairness test. Yet again we have seen a budget deficit blow out by 10 times compared to what the projections were in 2014. This government are woeful economic managers despite all their myth telling. This budget yet again cements the place of this government as the most incompetent government and as the most incompetent economic managers since the Billy McMahon era.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (12:46): Listening to the member for Shortland, you could have inserted that budget reply speech into any coalition budget over the last 20 years. The reality of delivering budgets is that Labor has never understood how to deliver a budget, what a budget surplus might be, how to get to a budget surplus and how to deal with the debt and deficit challenges that we have.
We have done something very important in this budget, and that is continue to restrain expenditure growth. For members opposite, who do not understand what I am talking about, that means we are going to be spending less, not just this year but every year over the forward estimates. Why is that important? Why is it important that we spend less as a government and we continue to restrain expenditure growth? It is important because we have to retain our AAA credit rating. It is important because we have to ensure that our economy is strong, and restraining expenditure growth is critical to that.
Even this morning, CommSec has recognised that the government's efforts to restrain expenditure growth are right on track. Our AAA credit rating has been retained. In a global economic environment, with the challenges that the world economy faces, nothing could be more important than reigning in expenditure growth in government. At every turn and at every step, as you have just heard, we are opposed by the Labor Party in restraining expenditure growth. In fact, every day they have a new plan to spend not just $1 billion, not just $2 billion, not just $10 billion; we just heard they are going to spend $22 billion more, just on one policy area.
We just heard that, even though it was a Labor government that froze the indexation of Medicare, a Labor government that initiated it under Julia Gillard, they would immediately remove it—a multibillion dollar policy with implications immediately. Rather than the government's sensible, phased approach to ensure that we continue to constrain expenditure growth.
Every single second of every single day the Labor party says, 'We've got a plan to spend more money.' I think people out there are onto this. They understand that you cannot just simply continue to spend more, spend more and spend more, because our budget is already in deficit. Our debt is already ballooning. We need to constrain expenditure growth. This government is doing that, and Labor does not understand it. This will have real implications if Labor is elected back to office, because they continue to advocate for very expensive policies that they simply cannot fund, even in critical areas like health, education—even the NDIS, a flagship Labor policy. The NDIS is a flagship Labor policy for which, in government, it committed to an increase in the Medicare levy, which we have in this budget. It is a reasonable, proportionate response to fund a critical area of government service delivery. This government is proposing a modest increase in the Medicare levy, which will guarantee, secure and underpin the funding of the NDIS, giving certainty to this very important program.
What do we have from the Shorten Labor opposition? We have a commitment to oppose a fair and reasonable increase, even for disability funding. We know that many members of the Labor Party oppose it. Of course Labor members go quiet at this point, because many members in the Labor Party understand that this increase is right. The government is proposing it for the right reasons. It is fair across the board. It is a Labor proposal to fund the NDIS through an increase in the Medicare levy. Ultimately, we know that at that shadow cabinet meeting the vast majority of the shadow cabinet advocated for Labor to support what was a sensible measure to fund the NDIS.
More is going to be said about this in coming days and weeks because the NDIS is a critical government policy that has to be funded. If you do not fund it properly, you cannot deliver it. If you cannot deliver it, you will be letting down the hopes and the aspirations of so many people in Australia with a disability, their families and their carers. It is Labor's job to come forward and say how they would fund it if they are not prepared to do it through raising the Medicare levy, which has support from almost everybody in the sector—every economist and everyone who has analysed the budget. That is because they know that a small, modest increase across the board in the Medicare levy protects the most vulnerable in our society because they will not pay it. We have increased the threshold in response to this. It makes people pay only a proportion of their income in a fair way up the income scale so that the people who can afford it the most bear the greatest burden, recognising that it could be any one of us at any time who needs to rely on the NDIS. It could be any one of our family members at any time who needs to rely on the NDIS.
Once again, it is this government delivering. It is the government ensuring that we have funded the promises that we put forward and that they will be paid for in full without increasing the budget deficit and the debt that Australia faces. Nothing could be more important in this economic environment. For Labor to abandon economic and fiscal responsibility at this time is even more dangerous than when they did it last time when they inherited a budget surplus and a set of books that were in almost perfect working order and took it from that point to where we are today.
I also want to speak about the government's commitment to Western Sydney and all of the different infrastructure and other measures that the government is bringing forward. Nothing is more important, of course, to the future of Western Sydney than the government's absolute and rock-solid commitment to now fund and build the Western Sydney Airport. The Western Sydney Airport will be a key driver of economic growth, hope and aspirations for the future of Western Sydney. It will mean better transport and infrastructure in Western Sydney. It will mean more jobs. It will mean economic growth. It will mean opportunities in the region for young people out of work. It is a solid commitment of the Turnbull government to Western Sydney. I welcome the announcement from Minister Fletcher that we as a government will establish a new government owned company that will ensure the airport is operational by 2026. Nothing could be more important than this commitment to Western Sydney. This is a real plan.
We hear members opposite say, 'There is no commitment to infrastructure in this budget,' but, for the region of Western Sydney—one of the most important economic regions to our GDP in Australia, one of the most important major cities of Australia now and home to millions of people—we have funded $5.3 billion of equity into this company to build the Western Sydney Airport and have it open and operating by 2026. It is, of course, the case that we have the Labor Party's support for the establishment of the Western Sydney Airport. Shadow minister Mr Albanese, a former transport minister, has been clear that Labor's position is to support the building of the Western Sydney Airport. But we also know that there are some individual Labor members in Western Sydney who continue to oppose the construction of the Western Sydney Airport in defiance of Labor Party policy, common sense and the wishes of their electorates.
The member for Lindsay is here, and I note that she is one of the notable ones who opposes the Western Sydney Airport—as do the member for Macquarie and the member for Chifley. Why would you oppose this government building the Western Sydney Airport in a critical region like Western Sydney when it would be a real economic driver of jobs and growth? It is not government that is going to provide the jobs. It is not government that is going to build that infrastructure. It is going to be a key economic driver that provides for the infrastructure for many years to come. The economic zones that we will see in Western Sydney around this airport—the growth that will come with it, the housing, the commercial zones, the zones of excellence and the Defence industry zones that the Minister for Defence announced recently—are a real commitment to the future of Western Sydney. For the member for Lindsay, the member for Macquarie and the member for Chifley to oppose this airport in defiance of their own party policy is a poor approach from them. I would encourage them to get on board with their colleagues and shadow minister Mr Albanese, the member for Grayndler, and all of the other Labor Party members, who do support the establishment of the Western Sydney Airport.
There is a reason Labor is backing the government in building this airport. Those local members need to get with the program, because I do not believe that in their electorates you will find much opposition to this airport. People know. They are realistic, and they want the airport. This would not only be good for transport but also be good for the links—the new roads that will be upgraded. It will be good for jobs, it will be good for young people and it will be good for business. International passengers will be flying into Western Sydney and engaging in tourism in the Blue Mountains. You could go to any one of those Blue Mountains hotels or businesses affected by tourism in the Macquarie region, and all of them would tell you that they would absolutely welcome the Western Sydney Airport. They would welcome international visitors being able to fly almost directly into the gateway of Sydney—there in the Blue Mountains, with the beautiful national parks that we have—and the global opportunity that it represents in terms of tourism and expansion. Of course, there are other important commitments in this budget to infrastructure. We have seen many in Sydney, and that includes the Australian government's equity investment in the Moorebank Intermodal Company for the development of the Moorebank Logistics Park. They are key drivers of economic growth and activity in Sydney to make sure that we have this, and this is welcomed in my electorate as well.
I turn to many of the measures that we have seen the government fund in immigration and border protection, working with Minister Dutton in the portfolio. I was pleased to see that the government's technology rollout continues in the Immigration and Border Protection portfolio. We are modernising our visa systems to facilitate economic growth and strengthen the intelligence measures that we have at the border to counter security threats. It is a good time on the economic side of the immigration portfolio because we have more tourists than ever before in Australia. We have more international students than ever before in Australia. We have more cargo movements than ever before in Australian history. The government, through its free trade agreements, its approach to international education and its approach to the tourism industry has driven real economic growth and growth in movements across the board. With this comes great challenge in the 21st century. We will see, through this budget, important measures in biometrics, important measures at SmartGate facilities and increased use of automation and technology to deal with the rising numbers of people coming for business and other reasons.
Ms Husar interjecting—
Mr HAWKE: The member for Lindsay is trying to interject something. I note that each week Border Force processes more than 600,000 people arriving or departing from Australia—a number expected to increase by 25 per cent in the next few years. It is vital, the investment that the federal government is making in SmartGate technology. It is vital, the investment in biometrics. In the security environment that we do face in today's world, these investments go a long way to protecting Australia and ensuring that the government and the department have the capability to meet the significant new security threat environment that we face with so much movement of people and goods across our borders.
We have also seen changes to the foreign workers program, the discredited 457 visa program, which was really exploited under Minister Bill Shorten in the Labor Party in the last Labor government. Those 457 changes include the scrapping of the scheme and the introduction of a genuine temporary skill shortage visa system on a two-year or four-year basis, with the flexibility for the government to increase or remove occupations as necessary. Those changes mean that this government is really addressing the concerns of the electorate in relation to skills shortages, ensuring that those businesses that have genuine skills shortages—that have searched for Australians and were unable to find them in a genuine way—are able to take advantage of either a two-year or four-year temporary visa for their workforce. There are occupations which have been on the list for too long, that have not been reviewed properly over many years and that have been the subject of many agreements under the Labor Party—I think the fast food agreement, for example, is one. 457s were brought into the fast food industry, and this has been scrapped under this government. There are many examples along this line.
This government is actually implementing right and responsible changes to make sure that the new temporary skilled shortage visa is a temporary visa, that it is for a genuine temporary skills shortage and that it is for a shorter period. We are able then to ensure that Australians are offered those jobs first. If you look at the maritime industry, we have taken ships officer, ships engineer and occupations like that off the list, recognising that there is a downturn in our mining sector. We recognise that there are many Australians now unemployed here who have the qualifications to operate these ships in our waters. Whatever sector you go to, these changes will mean a better outcome for Australian jobseekers who have the skills to do these jobs. It will mean that those companies from overseas who want to do business here will have to look for Australians first and more genuinely. It is, of course, in line with the government's policies to make sure that Australian based companies and people who do business here genuinely offer Australians, whether they be graduates or more-experienced people, those jobs first. That two-year work experience qualification is perhaps the most important element of this program, under which you will not be able to offer to graduates from overseas jobs that you should have offered to graduates in Australia or to people here with similar experience. It will not be the case anymore that graduates from overseas who are straight out of university will be offered jobs before Australian graduates.
Overall, this budget is making the right choices for our future. It is restraining expenditure, which is perhaps the most important challenge of any budget of this era that we live in, with the global economic downturn and the debt-and-deficit challenge that faces this country. We are restraining expenditure. We are increasing expenditure and funding measures in critical areas that people expect us to, such as education, health and the NDIS. At the same time, we are responsibly managing the economy to make sure that there are more jobs, that there is the growth we need to drive our future and that infrastructure critical to the future of our nation, like the Western Sydney Airport, goes ahead, funded by equity from the government in a responsible way that will mean that we do not go into further debt and further deficit.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (13:01): We have heard a lot lately from this government about fairness. This government is a lot of things, but the history of its budget measures over the past four years shows that fair is not one of them. In 2014 we saw the true nature of this government, with its harsh cuts to education, cuts to health, cuts to the ABC and the SBS, and changes to the pension. In the 2014 budget we also saw cuts to community legal centres, which the government has now, finally, backflipped on after extensive campaigning from the legal assistance sector. Make no mistake, this government has not changed. It did not understand fairness then and it does not understand it now. How could it, when it fundamentally believes that tax cuts for the wealthy and spending cuts for the less well off is good policy making or that multinationals should not be forced to pay their fair share?
Australians know that only the Labor Party can be trusted to stand for equality and fairness, because that is we have always done. We have fought against every unfair budget that this government has brought before the parliament and we will keep fighting that the most unfair measures in this budget do not pass through the parliament.
This budget breaks away from much that the coalition is supposed to believe in—lower taxes, reducing debt and deficit, and minimising the role of government—yet it is not a budget of social investment. It is neither a Labor nor a Liberal budget. That just leaves open the question: What does this budget mean? What does this budget tell us about the government's plans for the future of this country? All this budget tells us is that the Prime Minister wants to keep his job. He knows that his government is failing to live up to the expectations of the Australian people. He knows that inequality is rising—wages growth is at record lows and people in lower socio-economic groups are struggling. And he knows that the budget deficit has actually widened under this government. It is clear that the government's trickle-down approach is not working.
So now he is trying on Labor values for size. Well, Prime Minister, you are not in the Labor party—as much as you might wish you were—you never will be. This is a Prime Minister who does not understand the meaning of fairness, a Prime Minister who does not understand that equality benefits all of us and that it cannot be achieved by giving handouts to big business. This budget comes nowhere close to being a Labor budget. It does not uphold Labor values or promote equality of opportunity, and it definitely does not do anything for the safety net to make sure that Australians are kept from falling through the cracks.
Only Labor believes in fairness and delivers it. Only Labor is committed to the environment and combating climate change. The Prime Minister will do anything to keep his job, even if it means throwing the next generation under the bus. The government's failure to take any real action on climate change means that they are just leaving the next generation to deal with it. The Prime Minister once said that he did not want to lead a Liberal Party that did not feel as strongly about climate change as he did. But was there even one mention of climate change in this year's budget speech? No. This budget delivers zero new policies or funding to drive down carbon pollution and respond to climate change.
A Labor budget would not cut $22 billion from schools and $4 billion from universities. Labor understands that Australia's future lies in the skills, education and training of our people. Our education is our biggest asset, and we must invest in it if we are going to meet the challenges of the Asian century and bring something to the table in our relationships with China and India. It is clear that this government has their priorities all wrong when you consider that they are giving away $65 billion to big business while cutting $22 billion from Australia's schools. Young people are hurt by this budget and so is our future. Labor believes that every child in every school deserves to have an excellent education.
A Labor budget would protect Medicare. Over the past four years the government has cut Medicare, taxed Medicare and they have tried to privatise Medicare. And now they are backtracking to save themselves, because they know that Australians do not trust them to protect Medicare. And, of course, recently we have come to understand that the lifting of the freeze on large numbers of services for which Medicare pays is not to occur until as late as 2020. So much for the lifting of the freeze.
A Labor budget would provide more funding for public housing, especially for women and children fleeing family violence. This government does not understand that responding to family violence also requires addressing the shortage of affordable and available housing. Domestic and family violence is the number one reason why people access homelessness services. And, of course, victims of family violence need legal assistance. The government's cuts to community legal centres and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services would have caused countless examples of suffering to victims of family violence. Community legal centres are already turning away thousands of people each year, and these cuts would have seen many of these centres actually close their doors. Labor protested these cuts for years because we understand the vital work that community legal services do. Community legal centres provide assistance to vulnerable people to ensure that they do not become stuck in a cycle of disadvantage. These services deserve stability and predictable funding. They certainly do not deserve the uncertainty that they have been faced with because of this government announcing cuts, which it did in 2014, then pausing those cuts with the effect that right up until a few weeks ago—for some three years—the community legal services sector has been forced to endure uncertainty about its funding, and we know the kind of damage that that kind of funding uncertainty does to centres like this. It has meant the loss of experienced staff and, in some cases, the physical closure of centres, because they were unable to keep up their leases. In some cases it has meant the closing of long-established programs, because there was no certainty that those programs were going to be able to continue to be funded.
The government has taken some steps in this budget to address family violence. It has taken the government three years to finally agree, but they are now implementing the Productivity Commission's 2014 recommendation to stop alleged domestic violence perpetrators from personally cross-examining their victims in the family courts. While Labor does welcome this overdue change, we are yet to see how this change will be implemented. Let us be clear: you cannot implement this measure without additional funding for legal aid lawyers, who would need to be ordered by the courts to assist unrepresented litigants. Labor has committed $43.2 million for additional legal aid funding to ensure that parties refused the right to personally cross-examine are not denied natural justice.
Labor will not support the government setting aside $170 million for a divisive plebiscite, which is another measure that we see has come back in this budget. Despite explicitly banking more than $100 million in savings for not proceeding with the marriage equality plebiscite in last year's Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, here it is again, a zombie measure back from the dead. The plebiscite was always a terrible idea, and it met with strong opposition from a majority of Australians. This government needs to let parliament do its job and get on with making marriage equality a reality in Australia. That is what Labor would do because we understand what Australian people want, and that is a fair go for all Australians, including the LGBTI community. If we can take one thing from this budget, it is that both Labor and the coalition at least acknowledge that Australians want a budget that is fair. It is just that only Labor actually understand what fairness means.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (13:10): Seventy-five years ago, the great Sir Robert Menzies delivered his now famous speech 'The Forgotten People'. Sadly, those people are mostly still forgotten. In that speech he defined a forgotten people not by who they were but by who they were not. Three-quarters of a century later, we might define those people in a similar way. The rich and powerful are not so much forgotten as left to their own devices. They have the means by which to look after themselves, and they are only mentioned in this place when Labor wants to create a division by means of class war.
At the other end of the scale, there would not be a parliamentary sitting day go by without multiple references to the poor, the needy and the most vulnerable people in our community. While a focus on those people and a government that provides support for those who need it most is welcome, these are not the only people in this country. There are those in the vast middle ground that pay for that support. While much of the focus is on those at the bottom of the income scale, the media cycle is dominated by people who are at the upper end of the scale, the elite—the media elite, the cultural elite and, perhaps the least qualified of all the elite, the academic elite. In terms of annual income, some of the agenda setters fall around the upper-middle of the scale, but they are not Middle Australia. They are the noisy, attention-seeking fringe. This fringe often panders to the elite and aspires to be the elite. They co-opt the poor and the needy and hang them out with pride, dangling them over their lofty balconies to demonstrate how tolerant and inclusive they are. They tell the vast Middle Australia that it must give up more of its income to pursue elitist-driven political ideology. Meanwhile, Middle Australia is forgotten, neglected, censored and abused. The forgotten people are labelled racist, bigoted, homophobic or Islamophobic if they do not fall into line with what the elites and the elitist wannabes think is right.
What happened to Australian tennis great Margaret Court over the weekend is a perfect example of such intolerance. Margaret Court made the mistake of publicly saying she believed marriage was between a man and a woman, and that happens to be a point of view shared by millions of Australians. But, instead of whispering her opinion amongst her friends or her church friends or, better still, keeping it to herself, she had the audacity to say this in public! The result was that the media elites jumped all over her, and then social media reacted. The media then fed the reaction back into the news cycle, with a fresh round of headlines to perpetuate the abuse. There were headlines of news reports such as 'Social media went into meltdown' and 'Twitter storm has erupted'. The abuse is a warning to anyone who dares to have an opinion that does not fit the elitist narrative or who objects to having the LGBTIQ agenda shoved down their throats. What would be real news these days would be a headline that said, 'Ordinary Australian was allowed to have an opinion.'
It is not just the LGBTQ lobby, gender theory and identity politics on the fringe; it is the green activists who want to stop all industry. It is the violent fascism of 'antifa'. It is the anti-democracy and anti-capitalist organisations like the 'Occupy Everything' movement and the Socialist Alliance that rents the same jobless criminals to rally in the streets and bash anyone who commits what they think is a thought crime. It is the animal rights activists that shut down the live cattle trade and rejoiced at the death of a hunter, that place more value on the life of a shark or a crocodile than on the life of a human being but get the exterminators in to do their home for pests every year. This fringe is very loud and it works with a very compliant media elite, but it is very far from a majority and certainly does not represent middle Australia.
The concerns of middle Australia—the forgotten people—go mostly unnoticed. They have legitimate concerns about jobs and the cost of living. They are sick of seeing foreign workers with 457 visas take local jobs. They worry about the rise of foreign ownership in land, business and agriculture. They hear news of another $300 million being spent on foreign aid while victims of Cyclone Debbie here at home are denied recovery funds because of a bungle by the Queensland Labor government. They wonder why their taxes are so high when large corporations seem to pay nothing. They watch the banks make millions of dollars and then take a farm off a family who never missed a payment. They have pride in the flag and in being Australian, but they are told they are racist for celebrating Australia Day. They love the Australian way of life, but they are told Australian culture must be rejected to avoid offending fake refugees. They are concerned for their safety, but they are told that such concerns are racist or Islamophobic. In North Queensland, they pay outrageous insurance premiums on houses that have never been flooded and have survived cyclones unscathed. In North Queensland, people want jobs. But the fringe dwellers at groups like GetUp! and the Greens are spending millions of dollars to prevent job-creating ventures, such as the Carmichael coal project.
These are the forgotten people that Sir Robert Menzies set out to represent, and in the 2017-18 budget this government, I have to say, has addressed a good many of the concerns of those forgotten people. The banks will be forced to pay a fairer share. If they want to rebel by squeezing more profits out of customers, those customers will have an incentive to switch to one of the smaller banks, who do not pay the levy and who do not treat their customers like limitless cash cows. I am generally not in favour of higher taxes, but the big banks were major beneficiaries of a government policy during the GFC. I am generally not in favour of expensive interference in commercial enterprise either, but the arrogant behaviour of the banks indicates there is not enough competition and/or not enough regulation. The banks seem to believe they are a law unto themselves and that they can get away with unconscionable behaviour. I had hoped that measures introduced by this government would help to rein in the banks, but my faith in their better nature is still wanting. I do think a royal commission may be required to bring some balance, some competition, and some decency back into the banking system.
Another budget measure applauded by middle Australia is the cut to foreign aid, which would have been a better announcement in the wake of Cyclone Debbie. The savings will be spent on the safety of Australians, with an additional $300 million to strengthen security and boost the ability of the Australian Federal Police to combat terrorism and organised crime. While there is still a general reluctance across the political and media elite to acknowledge the dangers posed by the ideology of radical Islam, we are starting to hear some common sense. We cannot allow fear of being called a racist, a bigot or an Islamophobe to cloud our judgement on issues of national security and immigration. The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection announced earlier this month that fake refugees would have welfare revoked and would have to leave this country, and I congratulate him on having the guts to call out fake refugees for what they are. It is a shame there was not greater support for this move on all sides of this parliament. This is precisely what middle Australia wants and what all of Australia should be demanding.
A measure announced prior to the budget was the scrapping of 457 visas completely. This was excellent news for North Queensland and, no doubt, many other regional areas. Unemployment levels in North Queensland are high, running at above five per cent in Mackay and more than 11 per cent in Townsville. It is very disheartening for locals who are desperate for a job to see foreign workers with 457 visas coming into regions of high unemployment and taking Australian jobs that ultimately should go to Australian workers. Last year I called for the scrapping of 457 visas in North Queensland, where there simply are not enough jobs to go around. The number of 457-visa workers exploded under the previous Labor governments. When the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government was sent packing, the Liberal-National government tightened up the regulations. But the program was still being exploited at the expense of local workers, so I am encouraged to see the government is scrapping that program completely.
I was also encouraged to see in the budget a drug-testing trial for welfare recipients. Many workers in my electorate are forced to take regular and random drug tests as part of their job. If workers have to submit to drug tests to earn the taxes that are then spent on welfare, it is only just that the recipients of that welfare, people who are supposed to be looking for jobs, are doing the same. In a region where so many jobs include compulsory drug testing, job seekers are excluding themselves from the workforce if they are indulging in illicit substances. Newstart is about getting people job ready and into the workforce. A job seeker is not job ready if they have drugs in their system. The drug-testing trial announced in the budget is a very popular measure with the majority in my electorate, and I believe it will be popular across the nation. The idea was not so well received by the elites and the fringe dwellers. The outcry from the so-called human rights activists and the welfare lobbyists was predictable but baseless. They repeated claims like: 'We must give these people free money to stop them stealing,' a claim that is both defeatist and ludicrously laughable. The argument that we must expect and accept failure or crime is an insult to people who are subjected to the same measure in order to earn the money through their own sweat.
It is also good to see in the budget the adoption of the recommendations, the real recommendations, from the Gonski report. The Liberal-National government is implementing a real needs based school funding model as intended by David Gonski. Labor attempted to introduce 27 different models and the only need considered in their needs based funding was their own political survival. They could not even fund their hodgepodge of ideas. We have heard about the 'billions of dollars' worth of cuts,' but if there are billions of dollars' worth of cuts, where is it in your costings? Where is it in your own budgeting?
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr CHRISTENSEN: 'We're not in government,' they say. If you get in government you have to find that money. That is what Labor does not understand. Their so-called funding was never ever there. It will be interesting to see if the noisy fringe will still 'give a Gonski' and continue to attach such political placards to school fences now that a funding model truly reflects the needs of all schools. I caution that Catholic schools are now out there campaigning about this issue, the new model based on student needs, which is supposed to be blind to the nature of the school being public or private. The Catholic and Christian schools tend to take in students from families with limited means as well, and this will be reflected, I hope, in the funding. I will be watching it very carefully. Every child is a student and it is unfair to discriminate against one, and every parent of those students is a taxpayer.
While I welcome more funding, I acknowledge also that money alone cannot produce results. I do not believe that a teacher who might receive $250,000 in classroom resources will get a markedly different academic outcome than one that had $1 million in classroom resources. The great differences come from teaching. I look forward to what recommendations Mr Gonski will make with regard to getting those better teaching quality outcomes.
Labor continues to spruik about cuts to funding, even though funding continues to increase and the size of those increases, in dollar terms and percentage terms, are huge compared with other areas of the budget. I note the Labor lions now criticise cuts to Labor's policy. There are many ways the government can listen to the forgotten people. In particular, we can allow Adani's Carmichael coal project to create 10,000 jobs, and stop GetUp! and one lone Indigenous protestor from holding the whole country to ransom. We can implement recommendations from the parliamentary insurance inquiry to fix the problem of sky rocketing premiums in North Queensland. We can implement recommendations from the food certification inquiry to deal with the concerns that many have about halal certification. We can implement recommendations from the child support inquiry to deal with the concerns of many, many parents out there who think that that system is robbing them blind. We can deal with the family law system, again, where there is concern from many parents about this system encouraging parental alienation—a great form of child abuse. We can expedite work on water infrastructure in North Queensland, including Townsville's water supply and the construction of Urannah Dam. And we can commit to clean coal technology to power the north with a coal-fired generator in North Queensland.
The future of Australia does not lie in pandering to the indulgent whims of extremist fringes who bounce about the echo chambers of the media. It lies in the strength, determination, good nature and hard work of the forgotten people—the people who Sir Robert Menzies talked about and who I wholeheartedly support as a representative in this place.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): It being approximately 1.30 pm, the debate is interrupted. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour.
Sitting suspended from 13 : 26 to 16 : 00
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Tasmania: Petrol Prices
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (16:00): I recently asked the Prime Minister in question time to intervene on the price of petrol and LPG in Tasmania because prices are absurdly high compared to the mainland. The difference is often in the tens of cents per litre. Yes, it was good I was able to put the issue on the PM's radar, and the measures he outlined, like asking the ACCC to monitor prices, introducing an effects test and boosting the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme, are a start, but, regrettably, these measures do not go far enough to protect Tasmanian consumers.
It was very disappointing the PM did not commit to intervene, especially because the PM has intervened in other areas of energy policy. For instance, he has intervened in the gas market, directed ASIC to look at electricity prices and announced an expansion of the Snowy Hydro scheme. So there is simply no good reason why he would not intervene in this case as well and do something about the absurd prices that Tasmanians are being slugged for petrol and LPG. This is an issue that many constituents have approached me about, and I will continue to pursue the matter. Quite frankly, energy security and affordability is too important to leave to the market, and the federal government's hands-off approach does little to help ordinary Tasmanians who are struggling.
Tangney Electorate: Local Sporting Champions
Mr MORTON (Tangney) (16:01): Today I recognise Tangney's Local Sporting Champions. While the grant they receive of $500 does not go too far for young people in Tangney, who have to travel great distances to represent their state or their country, it is still very welcome relief for supportive parents who are passionate about young sportspeople.
In the latest round of Local Sporting Champions recipients in Tangney, I was happy to see some less popular sports being played. Phoebe Wardell-Johnson is competing nationally in calisthenics and Lilli McAuliffe is competing in women's championship cricket. Lauren Hardbottle recently went over to Townsville to represent WA with the Black Ducks, WA's junior wheelchair basketball team, at the Kevin Coombs Cup. Lauren trains twice a week with her teammates in Mirrabooka and Melville. Maybe one day, with upgrades to the Willetton Basketball Stadium, it might become a new home for Lauren and her team. Carla Drennan represented WA in junior basketball, Timothy Harvey represented WA in cycling, Douw Hoogenboezen represented WA in cricket and Gregory Chan did exceptionally well representing WA in squash at the Australian junior championship.
We celebrated their achievements and the achievements of all Tangney Local Sporting Champions at an afternoon tea I held in my electorate office. They are the next generation of world champions who train hard and apply their effort. I want to make sure we do everything we can to make their dreams of representing Australia in competitive sport come true. Well done.
Springwood United Football Club
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (16:03): If you have raised children in the Springwood-Winmalee area in the Blue Mountains in my electorate of Macquarie over the last 50 years, chances are you have had at least one season with the Springwood United Football Club. On Saturday night, players past and present celebrated the 50th season for Springwood soccer. Like many community football clubs, this one was started by a bunch of parents, and of course it has continued season in, season out thanks to the volunteer time of parents and community members.
Since 1968, Springwood United Football Club has added netball and even had darts at one time. The clubhouse was built, the lights went up and the grandstand was added. But, as every parent who has stood at Summerhayes Park through freezing games and even colder training nights—as I did with my two children for many seasons—knows, this is a club that has community at its heart. It was not about whether you won the premiership. We made lifelong friends on those sidelines and at the sausage sizzles, and our kids had the chance to make a different set of friends on the field as well as learn valuable lessons about working as a team.
Fifty years is a wonderful milestone, and every single person who put their hand up to be a coach, to be team manager, to be on the committee or even to be a sponsor is part of its success. It is lovely to see the club has returned to its original lyrebird logo. Congratulations to the entire committee, led by chairman, Chris Gilchrist, and vice-chair, Peter Dempsey, for a successful evening which also raised money for the Adam Crouch Foundation.
Jeff Morgan Gallery
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (16:04): It gives me great pleasure to thank Jeff and Miriam Morgan of Jeff Morgan Gallery in Hawker in the central Flinders Ranges for giving me the honour the last Friday of opening the latest addition to Jeff's art gallery. The latest addition is a panorama of the Arkaroola waterhole, Nooldoonooldoona, which is 46 metres around and 5½ metres high. It is a stunning piece of work. It joins Jeff's earlier Wilpena panorama and a number of huge canvases there, including the very popular 'Ron's Creek', which is 15 metres by 4½ metres high. Seriously, when looking at them, you feel as though you could walk into the Flinders Ranges. I actually say to people, 'The only downside of this gallery in Hawker is that people may well visit and then elect not to go into the rest of the Flinders Ranges because they have already seen it!' It is just so good. People cannot get enough of it.
Jeff is held in high regard by the International Panorama Council. In fact, when he visited China some years ago he was honoured with a very similar yellow coat to the one that John Howard wore when he was a special guest there. Jeff started training at 34. He was a house painter and he had an accident. He found then he could turn his skills to fine art. It is a great tribute to someone with great perseverance and skill— (Time expired)
Passfield, Mr Pat
Mr DICK (Oxley) (16:06): I rise today to congratulate a local Oxley resident, Mr Pat Passfield, who is a true champion in our community. Last Friday I was delighted to host the shadow minister for ageing and mental health, Julie Collins, in the electorate of Oxley. We were able to visit new aged-care facilities and visit a very special place, Sinnamon Village, run by the Wesley Mission in Queensland. The shadow minister was able to present Pat with a certificate of appreciation for his outstanding work in raising funds. Pat is a virtual walker. On his treadmill he has walked the equivalent of from Brisbane to Melbourne and back. Each year Pat raises thousands of dollars. He has raised money for diabetes. He has made money for the Wesley Mission. Now he is raising important funds for Youngcare.
Alongside CEO Geoff Batkin, the director of residential aged care, Annie Gibney, and Melissa Peterson, the centre manager, we were able to join with residents at this wonderful facility and acknowledge Pat's outstanding contribution. Pat is a great bloke. He is a good friend of mine. I was delighted to honour his contribution to our community. Long may Pat keep walking and raising funds. You are doing a great job, mate. We are all behind you.
Country Fire Authority
Ms HENDERSON ( Corangamite ) ( 16:07 ): I rise to condemn the union attack, backed by Daniel Andrews, on Geelong and regional volunteer members of the Country Fire Authority. In last week's Geelong Advertiser, a full-page advertisement which was not authorised or authored, headed 'Geelong's outgrown its current fire system', demeaned Geelong's CFA firefighters, claiming Geelong doesn't receive the same professional level of fire response as metro Melbourne. Not only is this unfair; it is dangerous. The advertisement, which had been secretly funded by the union movement, belittled Geelong as having a country structure and stated that the safest and most sensible way forward is to modernise our fire services by creating a single career firefighting and rescue service that looks after the cities like Geelong and all of urban Melbourne equally.
Unfortunately, this is another attempt by Daniel Andrews and the militant United Firefighters Union to bring CFA volunteers to their knees, to break up and destroy CFA volunteerism. It is absolutely terrible what is happening to the CFA in Victoria. Under Labor's proposal, only parts of Geelong are covered by the new fire rescue Victoria zone. So is Labor suggesting that homes in Highton, Dover Heights, Waurn Ponds and Marshall, which are outside this particular zone, are not as well protected as homes in Belmont, Geelong and Corio? These claims are a disgrace. Daniel Andrews's attempts to destroy CFA volunteers are an absolute disgrace. (Time expired)
Tasmania: Goods and Services Tax
Ms COLLINS (Franklin) (16:09): Tasmanians are very concerned, as I have raised in this place before, about the federal government's inquiry into the GST distribution. Tasmanians are rightly concerned about this because it could cost our state billions of dollars. People would know that Tasmania has had a significant issue in recent years and that we have a higher proportion of people reliant on government support payments. Indeed, we rely very heavily on that GST revenue to run our hospitals and our schools in Tasmania, even though the current state government is not doing a particularly good job of it.
I have to say that I nearly choked on my muesli this morning when I read a letter from David Bushby, a senator for Tasmania, who said:
The Government has no plans to slash Tasmania's GST.
He went on to say that the Tasmanian Liberal Senate team support the principles of horizontal fiscal equalisation. That is the way that the GST is currently distributed. Of course, this is not true. It is the Liberal government that is actually holding an inquiry into the distribution method of the GST. It is in fact the Liberals who are putting Tasmania's share of the GST at risk, and the Liberal senators should be ashamed of their behaviour. Indeed, when the Minister for Finance was directly asked to assure Tasmanians that our GST share was safe, he could not and/or he would not do that. Tasmanians have had no guarantee from anybody in the federal Liberal party that their share of the GST is safe, and they are relying on it to be safe.
Page Electorate: Hockey
Lollback, Mr Neville
Mr HOGAN (Page) (16:10): I would like to congratulate the Grafton men's over-50s hockey team that beat Bathurst two to one to win the New South Wales Masters state title recently. The team, which was led by captain Michael Russ and vice-captain Scott Thompson, was emotional with its victory, which came the day after Neville Lollback, a very well known person in the local hockey community and friend to the players, passed away. Goalkeeper Dale Neaves played a great game, along with the skill and determination of the entire team, which included Glen Coombes, Brad Deece, Cliff Green, Ray Loy, David Oseland, Mark Robson, Peter Ryder, Tony Ryder, Mick Shipman, Andrew Terrey and Michael Wunderlich. I would also like to make mention of and wish the best of luck to Barry Livermore, who is recovering from an on-field stroke on the first day of the championships.
On Neville Lollback: our thoughts are with his wife, Alison; children, Jess, Mitch, Erin, Liam, Tiarn and Brayden; grandchildren, Sage and Reid; and the wider family. As an aside: Brayden, his son, scored a hat trick in the Grafton men's premier league on the same weekend. He said it was a really tough decision whether to play or not, especially after the minute's silence, when he broke down and needed to sit on the bench. Then Liam consoled his stepbrother. He went up to Brayden, patted him on the shoulder and said, 'Let's do this, brother.' And do it they did. As I said, our thoughts and prayers are with the whole family.
Lindsay Electorate: Red Shield Appeal
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (16:12): Yesterday, like so many Australians across the country, I volunteered to collect for the Red Shield Appeal in my community of Lindsay. I started my Red Shield Appeal volunteer collection career as a grade 7 student and collected for many years. Yesterday I was very proud to take my own children along to pass on what I think is a very worthwhile and valuable legacy.
The Lions Club of Emu Plains, in my electorate, coordinated the collection for our area on behalf of the Salvos, and I would like to thank all of those within the Lions Club who supported yesterday's event. Before we set off, we were joined by the managing director of three local McDonald's restaurants, Mr Dominic Meduri, who presented a generous cheque to my team to kick-start our collection. Along with another generous donation from Ben Dorrell, of the Lewers cafe gallery, my team contributed over $1,000 to the tally, which resulted in $7½ thousand, up 60 per cent on last year, coming from the Lions Club of Emu Plains.
As I have said all along in this place, I get to represent the best people as the member for Lindsay, and yesterday was just another example of that. Our community dug deep to support the people who are less well off and people who find themselves, sometimes through no fault of their own, needing the help of the Salvation Army. I would like to give a special shout out and a mention to all those people who gave up their time yesterday right across the country to support such a valuable and worthwhile cause, especially John Cromoa; Ian West; Jim Divine; Kate, Jack, David, Alan and Therrie; and all of the volunteers who came out in support of the Salvation Army's Red Shield Appeal. Thank God for the Salvos, and thank God for all those people who came to support the Red Shield Appeal and those who generously donated.
Guteridge, Mr Kevin Robert
Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay) (16:14): We were all saddened on Monday, 15 May 2017 when we learned that former senior sergeant of police and member of the Hervey Bay retired police association Kevin Robert Guteridge, 86 years old, of Point Vernon, tragically lost his life in a traffic crash near Tiaro. Kevin was a highly respected, competent police officer and member of our community and will be sadly missed by his friends and former colleagues.
In 1954, Kevin was a constable at Cloncurry and was directed to escort a female patient by train to Townsville base hospital. In those days it was necessary for the police officer on such an escort to be accompanied by a female. A young Victorian nurse, Cynthia McDonald from the Cloncurry base hospital, agreed to be part of the escort team. This was the start of their friendship and a marriage that lasted more than 62 years. They have six children, two girls and four boys. The four sons followed in Kevin's footsteps by joining the Queensland Police Service.
Kevin served at more stations throughout the state than any other police officer: Roma St, Brisbane; Rockhampton; Cracow; Townsville—twice; Prairie; Birdsville; Cloncurry; Bedourie; Mt Isa; McKinlay; Cooyar; Aramac; Tewantin; Nanango; Clayfield; and Beenleigh. Cynthia's nursing training was a great benefit to the communities, also.
To an outstanding policeman, husband, father and friend, vale Kevin Guteridge.
Calwell Electorate: Tanderrum Gardens, Keilor Downs College
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (16:15): Last Friday I had the opportunity to officially open the Tanderrum Gardens at the Keilor Downs Secondary College. It is a great school in my electorate, with excellent teaching and learning results, with dedicated teachers and a dynamic leadership team led by Principal Linda Maxwell. The beautiful new garden space was created as a quiet place for students who want to spend their time doing something peaceful, such as reading, talking with friends, playing chess or just having a bit sitting around and lazing in the sun. Tanderrum is an Aboriginal word taken from the language of the Wrundjeri people, who are the traditional inhabitants of the land that Keilor Downs College stands on.
When the clans of the Wrundjeri people got together they would do a welcome ceremony, which declared that in this meeting place everyone was equal and everyone was expected to participate. This space has been named after that welcome ceremony, so it will be known as the Tanderrum Gardens. The definition of Tanderrum really captures the true spirit of this space. Literally, it means 'to promote the energy of participation'. If there is one thing that drives schools, apart from learning, it is participation. The best way to learn is to participate in what is going on around you, and to be very much a part of it. I want to thank the hardworking facilities team that created this space for the students of Keilor Downs College. In particular, I want to thank the hard work and dedication of the principal, Linda Maxwell. Congratulations Keilor Downs College.
Swan Electorate: Aged Care
Mr IRONS (Swan) (16:17): I rise today to update the House on how the Aged Care Approvals Round, or ACAR, of the Capital Grants Program for 2016-17 will positively impact Swan. Firstly, I would like to congratulate the Minister for Aged Care, Ken Wyatt, on the work he and his staff and department have put into this funding round. I had the pleasure this morning of joining the Prime Minister, the Minister for Aged Care and a number of my parliamentary colleagues, who are in this room now, at the unveiling of the minister's portrait, in honour of his election as the first Indigenous member of parliament. It was a very special morning and it was a privilege to be part of it. I am very proud to call Ken Wyatt a friend.
Returning to ACAR, there are 9,911 new residential aged care places, worth an estimated $649.2 million in annual recurrent funding; there are 475 new short-term restorative care places, worth an estimated $34.7 million in annual recurrent funding; and $64 million in capital grants to enable new or existing providers to undertake necessary capital works.
It is a highly competitive application process that enables prospective and existing approved providers of aged care to apply for a range of Australian government funded aged care places and financial assistance. Two organisations in Swan have been successful: Burswood Care in Victoria Park, receiving a total of 120 residential care places; and, in addition to this, SwanCare Group's new service, 'Cassia' in Bentley, has also received 120 residential care places. In monetary terms, $15,720,000 for the seat of Swan.
Member for Gilmore
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (16:18): Today I am taking the unusual step of calling on a National Party minister to guarantee $9.4 million in funding in a Liberal Party seat, or, that is, a seat that is currently held by a Liberal Party MP. Unfortunately, she refuses to fight for the funding herself. I am talking, of course, about the seat of Gilmore, where, before the last election, the Liberals committed to fund a job-creating project that they could never honour. I am talking about the motorsports complex at Yerrigong, in the Shoalhaven. It was supposed to be a fantastic facility. The only problem is, it was never funded and it was never able to be approved.
I was angry about it at the time, because there were a number of shovel-ready projects in my own electorate that were overlooked, only to fund something that looked likely it was never going to get off the ground. It looked like a broken promise in the making. The election followed and the promise was made. There was a razor thin margin—1,500 people—in that electorate. No doubt a good number of them voted for the Liberal Party because they thought that project was going to be completed. Of course, it was not. It was rejected.
Not only did this occur but on 27 March this year the member finally acknowledged that the project has failed and, importantly and sadly, gave up the fight for the funds, which is why today I am calling on the parliament to support me and I am asking the member to reply to the letter I have written on behalf people who want a $9.4 million project in this electorate.
Egypt's Coptic Community
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (16:20): Last Friday a group of around 60 Coptic Christians headed off in a convoy in two buses making their way to the Monastery of Saint Samuel the Confessor, 135 kilometres south of Cairo. They were going to pray. They were stopped by 10 masked attackers dressed in military uniforms, who opened fire on them with military weapons. The death toll currently stands at 29, with another 20 people injured, some still in a critical condition. One of the victim's cousins said: 'They had no mercy. They shot the men, the children and the women—everybody.' Islamic State has claimed responsibility.
This follows other attacks on the Coptics. Two churches were bombed on 9 April and 45 people were killed. Back in December, at a bombing of a church in Cairo, a further 21 Coptic Christians were killed. We give all strength to President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi to stamp down on the terrorism in their nation. We send our condolences to the Coptic people. Also I stand with the words of President Trump, who said:
… this steels our resolve to bring nations together for the righteous purpose of crushing the evil organisations of terror, and exposing their depraved, twisted, and thuggish ideology.
Broadband
Mr HILL (Bruce) (16:21): It is with utter exasperation that I rise today. It is rare that I reach the point with constituent issues of WTF, but now I simply do not know what to do. I am making a plea to the Minister for Communications and the Prime Minister to do something—anything—for my constituent Allan in Wheelers Hill and his neighbours regarding their ongoing saga of trying to get a working NBN connection. In November, in December, in January, in February, in March, in April and in May there were numerous circular emails, buck-passing the incompetence, between iPrimus and the NBN. There is no hope in sight. It keeps failing. They are living their life between dongles.
Eight NBN technicians have visited this site, yet none have fixed it. They all say the same thing. The problem is the NBN is run through old cabling in an old pit. It is rusted and corroded. Every time it rains it dies. There is no facility in the system to fix this. The recent tech said, 'This problem should be prime ministerial level escalation,' shaking his head. He knows the NBN copper mess is a Turnbull special.
I repeat my call. There is no accountability in the system between the telcos and the NBN, and people get stuck in loops. It is time that monetary compensation was introduced to people in Allan's situation, as used to happen under the customer service guarantee with ADSL, to put an incentive on the telcos and NBN to fix these problems that go on for too long.
Workplace Relations
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (16:23): I am rising on behalf of the 1,111 clubs around this country, the 2.4 million visitors to clubs and the 21,000 Australians who work in community clubs. There is a constant Labor Party attack on their great clubs and the completely spurious claim that they are potentially cutting penalty rates. Everyone knows that the fair work decision did not even allow for any changes in penalty rates in the club award. I am asking specifically Don Brown, a state MP in my electorate, why he continues to parade outside our clubs claiming spuriously that penalty rates are under attack.
First of all Mr Brown said he was congratulating clubs for not passing on the penalty rate cuts—when, in fact, no changes in the law had occurred and, therefore, they could not anyway. Then he went to the next community club down the road and engaged in aggressive, illegal behaviour on club premises, threatening patrons on the spurious argument that they are going to cut weekend rates—when again the law prevents them from doing so. We are trying to understand these claims and these attacks on the clubs and, likewise, we are trying to understand how the fake data that he circulated showing spurious wages that libelled Capalaba Sports Club was possibly allowed to be promulgated from his office, what support he has from the Attorney-General, in writing, to conduct these attacks and, lastly, how he can explain the Treasury Casino enterprise bargaining agreement, which leaves workers worse off.
Perth Electorate: HBF Run for a Reason
Mr HAMMOND (Perth) (16:25): This may have escaped your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, but today I have been hobbling around this place like a poor imitation of John Wayne! But I can assure you there is a very good reason for that. It is that I was one of 35,000 who took part in the annual HBF Run for a Reason yesterday, and it was a glorious morning at that. Throughout my electorate of the federal seat of Perth, 35,000 of us took off on the half-marathon, which started bright and early—it was a bit chilly but, once we got going, we were okay—the 12-kilometre run, the four-kilometre run or the four-kilometre walk. It was a beautiful course that ran through Kings Park, through the city, over the bridges, through the causeway and back to the iconic Gloucester Park.
It was a terrific event. Not only was it a great event to bring the community together; it raised an enormous amount of much needed money for charities. There was $1,127,515.72 raised to support the Cancer Council of Western Australia, Lifeline WA, the Heart Foundation and Diabetes WA. It was a terrific example of how the community can come together to promote healthy living, and it was all for a good cause. Well done to the organisers at HBF and well done to every one of those 35,000 who got over the finish line.
Queensland Government
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Deputy Nationals Whip) (16:26): We know the Palaszczuk government needs Greens preferences to stay in power, but this latest move is a blatant insult to long-suffering regions outside the south east corner, including my electorate of Capricornia. The Queensland Labor government is treating working Queenslanders with contempt, while GetUp! seems to be running the state.
By refusing to honour its agreement to facilitate funding applications for vital infrastructure with NAIF funding, the Labor Party is betraying Central Queensland workers. Oh, they were happy to fly to India to have photos taken, and happy to drag the chain to retain government, but what about jobs for the 7.2 per cent unemployed in Rockhampton? What about a future for the 20 per cent of young people who cannot find jobs in Central Queensland? Queensland Labor caved on royalty incentives, and now they are washing their hands of major infrastructure for Central and Northern Queensland. That does not just hurt Adani; this affects infrastructure investment that would open up the Galilee Basin and support the blue-collar workers who built this state. This is an insult to the working people of Queensland, and it is an insult to the very foundations of the Labor Party. If they cannot stand up to GetUp!, it is time they got out.
Blair Electorate: St Edmund's College Ipswich Mentoring Program
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (16:27): Last Friday, at Brothers Leagues Club in Ipswich, I had the pleasure of attending the St Edmund's College in Ipswich for their 'Learning from the Professionals' mentoring program launch. It is a program in its 13th year, and I am happy to say I have attended many of these events. St Edmund's—or 'Eddie's', as most people know it—is a Catholic boys' school in my electorate of Blair. The school is deeply respected by the Ipswich community and has been since the Christian Brothers arrived in Ipswich in February 1892. Home to about 1,000 students, it provides an outstanding education both inside the classroom and throughout the broader community. The mentoring program is just one example of this. The program sees participants assigned a mentor from their chosen field of work who they are able to shadow and learn from over the next three months. Many of the mentors are former Eddie's men giving back to their former school.
This year, 16 year 11 students signed up to take part, nominating a diverse range of professions, including architecture, surgery, the Defence Force and even palaeontology. With the help of those community members who have generously donated their time to help out with this program, they will gain experiences and insights into their future careers that they simply would not get otherwise. I want to congratulate principal Diarmuid O'Riordan and his staff on the mentoring program and to congratulate the school for the wonderful work they do, whether it is the East Timor classroom building project, Footprints in the Park or any of the other wonderful things they do in the Edmund Rice tradition.
Berowra Electorate: Arcadia Playgroup
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (16:29): I rise to speak about the official opening of the Arcadia Playgroup shed at the Arcadia Public School markets on 6 May this year, which I performed. I want to particularly acknowledge Karen Prentice who was the founder of the playgroup; Farah Miles; Jo Dawson; Dale Carn, who are the joint playgroup coordinators; Pete Jones, the president; and Trent Dawson, the vice president of the Arcadia Public School P&C; and Sharon O'Brien, the principal of Arcadia Public School.
The Arcadia Playgroup was founded in September 2013 by Karen Prentice at the Arcadia Public School. In January 2016, Farah, Jo and Dale became joint playgroup coordinators. During 2016 the membership grew, with 10 mums officially joining as Playgroup NSW members, and many others attending on a casual basis. Over 25 children have attended the playgroup over the past year.
In mid-2016, the Arcadia Playgroup secured a $2,000 volunteers grant, through the Turnbull government's grant scheme, for storage; tea and coffee making facilities; a breastfeeding chair; and other items to assist the coordinators in their role. However, the shed required a major renovation, and the Arcadia Public School's P&C agreed to fund the project. Renovation was completed in just three weeks by local school dads—Michael Carn, from Empire Bathrooms; Trent Dawson, from Dawson Electrical; Fedie Abood, from Aboods Earthworks; and Jeff Lister, from Arcadia Painting. I wish the Arcadia Playgroup continued success in their new premises.
Mason, Mr Herbert
Mr GILES (Scullin) (16:31): Just after dawn on Anzac Day, I was with many thousands of my constituents at Epping RSL, reflecting on a typically beautiful Anzac Day service, when Herb Mason, the president of the Epping RSL, announced that he would be stepping down as president. Herb had served the Epping RSL as its president for 18 years, an extraordinary contribution to the RSL and to the wider community, and had been involved in the organisation for many years before that. Herb's departure will be deeply felt in the community, so it is appropriate that I acknowledge his contribution in this place, as well as his wider contribution.
Herb joined the army in 1962 and fought for Australia in Vietnam. When he returned, he continued to serve his community, being a member of the RSL all of that time. He is described by those who know him best as loyal and hardworking, and I know both these things to be true. I also know him to be a good friend, a confidant and a great source of advice.
Herb saw his role as president of the RSL as looking out, not looking in. He made an extraordinary contribution to the northern suburbs' commemoration of Anzac Day a couple of years ago. I know that he has left the Epping RSL in very good hands. I also know he will not be absent from community life, but I do take this opportunity to acknowledge an extraordinary constituent and a great human being.
Brookes, Mr Lane
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa) (16:32): Last week I was honoured to welcome to Parliament House a young community leader, Lane Brookes, from Roma in my electorate of Maranoa. Lane and 49 other young Indigenous men and women travelled from all across the country to be here with us for the National Indigenous Youth Parliament. Lane likes nothing more than to represent his community, and I was proud to learn that Lane had also successfully been elected as the Indigenous parliament's opposition leader.
At just 22 years old, Lane is a credit to his family and community. Lane has been at the helm of community events in Roma, raising more than $50,000 for the annual charity rugby league all-stars game, all for the benefit of his local community. In 2013, Lane received the Ethel Munn award for service to the community for: volunteering for six years at the Roma Christmas luncheon, which supports homeless and socially isolated people in Roma; arranging football games for the community; volunteering at the evacuation centre during major floods; and also for sharing his culture's traditional dance, nationally and internationally.
At just 18, in 2014, the Maranoa Regional Council awarded Lane the Roma Citizen of the Year Award. In 2016, Lane was awarded the Young Legend of the Year for Australian Tidy Towns. Also in that year, Lane was part of the Queensland state parliament's Indigenous Youth Leadership Program. His initiative to have a go and lead, coupled with his passion to continuously improve the life of his local community, is nothing short of inspiring. Congratulations, Lane.
Longman Electorate: Caboolture Neighbourhood Centre
Ms LAMB (Longman) (16:34): I rise to give a statement in this final 92nd session in the Federation Chamber on a Monday afternoon. Opportunities to speak of the good of our electorates are important in representing the communities that we vowed to represent and the voices we promised to bring with us to be heard in this House. These include voices from local organisations like the Caboolture Neighbourhood Centre. Recently, I attended the centre's open day, where I was able to speak with staff and volunteers, schoolchildren and teachers, and locals who attended the event.
There are many people in our community who struggle to get by, and the Caboolture Neighbourhood Centre supports these people through courses, programs and support groups. It is a centre which promotes community and togetherness, the benefits of which are very far too often overlooked. It was great to be at the open day to see the smiles on the faces of local schoolkids, balloons and show bags in their hands; to see a group of people sitting around listening intently as a volunteer gave them financial advice through a presentation; and to see all sorts of people from right around our community and neighbourhood coming together for the benefit of and for our community. We must continue to ensure that the voices of our local organisations are heard in this House at every single opportunity.
Road Safety
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (16:35): Last Friday, I attended the Fatality Free Friday event in my city of Toowoomba, chaired by the deputy mayor, Carol Taylor, and addressed by our mayor, Paul Antonio. This was a most significant event to remind our community of the importance of taking personal responsibility for being safe on our roads. Along with many others, I signed the pledge, as I did here in the Australian parliament with many colleagues not so long ago, to always be fit to drive, stay focused on the road, scan the road ahead, keep a safe distance and drive to suit the conditions. These were the very messages that I stressed to my eldest daughter as she drove herself on her first long road trip from Rockhampton, in Central Queensland, to Brisbane, in the south-east, just one day later. We must heed the heartfelt messages last Friday from Darling Downs District Inspector Stephen Angus, of the Queensland Police Service, and from Assistant Commissioner David Hermann, of the Queensland Fire and Emergency Services, that the key to road safety is in all of our hands—in our families' hands and in our communities' hands, but ultimately in each individual set of hands, for us as road users, one and all.
Broadband
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (16:37): I rise to speak about the diabolical farce that is the rollout of the National Broadband Network in my electorate of Grayndler. My office is currently inundated with requests from constituents trying to navigate the atrocious half-measure that is this coalition government's 'fraudband' network. The problems are a direct result of policy failure.
Fibre to the premises—every home and every business—was Labor's plan, a universal system that recognised that fibre in the 21st century was as important as water or electricity, an acknowledgement that high-speed broadband is essential for education and health. Under this government though, particularly under Malcolm Turnbull as the minister, he unravelled that. We have a mix of fibre to the premises, fibre to the node, fibre to the basement and hybrid fibre coaxial cable, where there was just one plan before. We have even had the purchase of some 15 million metres of copper wire to complete the NBN—a farce in the 21st century. Two weeks ago, The New York Times reported that Morgan Jaffit, a Brisbane based video games developer, had used registered post rather than uploading files, because that was quicker. The fact is that we need 21st century technology, and that means fibre to the premises.
Moore Electorate: Aged Care
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (16:38): I welcome the announcement on Friday that the coalition government has allocated $9.5 million in federal funding for an additional 145 aged-care places within my electorate of Moore, including 60 specialist care beds for those diagnosed with dementia. The new facility will be built and operated by Southern Cross Care. The funding will be the catalyst for attracting private investment as part of a larger health and wellness precinct on the prominent site, which has remained vacant in Currambine for a number of years and is bordered by Burns Beach Road, Connolly Drive and Sunlander Drive.
In the longer term, there are plans to further expand the facility to offer an integrated health, wellness and residential care service for our local community. The integrated living model places the client at the centre by promoting the benefits of preventative health and wellness. Rather than providing episodic health care for the elderly in a standard residential facility, the health and wellness precinct will provide a wide range of health services to meet the complex health needs of our ageing population. In addition, there will be housing options for seniors seeking to downsize whilst continuing to live independently with adequate in-home care, on-site access to health and wellness services, backed by medical support from general practitioners and allied health professionals.
Port Stephens Koalas
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (16:40): Port Stephens Koalas is a volunteer organisation in my electorate of Paterson that works tirelessly to rescue and care for sick and injured koalas. The urban threats to our koala population are very real, and it is estimated that there are only between 200 and 400 in our local area. About 50 deaths are recorded every year.
Port Stephens Koalas, which was formed 30 years ago as the Hunter Koala Preservation Society, has 180 members and many more supporters. It has 60 active volunteers, who provide best-practice care for sick, injured and orphaned koalas to give them the best possible chance of returning to the wild. They care for between 80 and 100 koalas every single year in their homes, and keep an important database for tracking and research.
The good news is that the group are inching closer to their goal of building a $3 million koala hospital facility at Treescape Holiday Park, One Mile Beach. They have the support of Port Stephens Council and some funding from the New South Wales government's Stronger Communities Fund, which they gained with the help of my colleague the state member for Port Stephens, Kate Washington. Now they are seeking federal support under the Building Better Regions Fund. I fully endorse their endeavour. I know that we need to save this icon for Paterson and for Australia.
First Home Super Saver Scheme
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (16:41): Budget 2017 is a good budget. There has been a lot of talk about its demonstrated commitment to education, small business, infrastructure, jobs, families and seniors. But what about young people? What is in this budget for young people? There is downward pressure on the cost of living. There are big boosts for roads, particularly the Bruce Highway through Moreton Bay and Brisbane. There is also, of course, us as a government endeavouring to return to surplus so that young people are not left with this generation's debt.
The big thing for young people is the First Home Super Saver Scheme for those wanting to save for their first home. If young people are looking to buy a unit for $350,000 or a house for $400,000, there is a great way they can save some money. If they salary sacrifice $10,000 a year from their wage, from 1 July this year they will save some $5,250 in three years.
Let me explain. If you put $10,000 into a bank account, after tax of 32½ per cent you are really only left with $6,750. By putting the money into the first home super scheme, you are taxed at 15 per cent, so from your $10,000 you will be left with $8,500. Over a three-year period you will have $5,250 in your pocket instead of it being in the government's. This is a great scheme from 1 July this year.
Yeronga State School Fete
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (16:43): On Saturday I went to the Yeronga State School fete and helped out on the barbeque stall. On behalf of the organising committee, I want to thank many of the volunteers connected with that wonderful event, which is held only every two years. In particular I thank Sarah, Kate, Gretta, Leesa, Amy, Andrea, Faith, Megan, Sandra, Kristen and Sara. There were so many people who turned up to help with the fete, and I know I will not get through all the names because I am reading from a very long email.
Thanks to Georgina Rowe, Anna Crumpton, Chante Tanielu, Amy Bewley, Andrew Kerswell, Kath Underwood, Chrystal Hall, Faith Hage, Sam Kendall, Suzie Wiltshire, Kristen Stafford, Riza Price, Ili Bone, Leah Lane, Ann Webb, Lorien Beazley, Steve Griffiths, Andrew Howell, Maggie Nolan, Rebecca Hartwick, Di Rejimon, Fiona Musgrave, Maria Morell, Koulla Constantinou, Julia Long, Sophie Walker, Kirsten Chant, Mandy Flack, Andrea Wold, Jane Quire, Sandra Bingham, Kristen Jennings and the whole YOSHC crew—to name just a couple!
I thank Paul Sutherland, who helped out with the cleaning; Rick and Jane Quire; Christian and Kristen Jennings; Sandra and Steve Bingham; Gretta Palmer; Sara Burg; Brad Wegner; and Hugh Webb, who did a stellar job of organising. I also thank the many dads who turned up. Thank you to the people who were brave enough to be dunked. I particularly apologise to Mr Curness, who, I believe many people tried to dunk. To the many other people whose names I do not have time to get to: thank you for the great contribution you make to Yeronga State School. (Time expired)
Fairfax Electorate: Seniors Advisory Committee
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (16:45): There is no doubt that we Australians owe a great debt to our older citizens, our seniors. If it were not for them, our country would not be as safe, secure and prosperous as it is today.
The Sunshine Coast has long been a destination for retirees, for older Australians. Indeed, the last census showed that seniors make up approximately 40 per cent of our population. As the member for Fairfax, I need help to engage with every demographic, but particularly seniors, especially since I have not yet become one. For this reason, I have started the Fairfax seniors advisory committee. I wish to thank Carol Cashman, Lesley Cowan, John Devers, Margaret Donaldson, Bernie Treston, Graham Young and David Woodrow for joining the advisory committee.
The purpose for establishing the committee is to ensure that we can engage with seniors in a two-way dialogue to ensure that they can raise with me the issues of most importance to seniors, as well as reviewing and providing feedback on government policy. If it were not for people who so generously give of their time and advice, members like me could not do our job as well as we can.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
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.
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (16:47): It is an old cliche, but budgets are about priorities. They are about governments making choices about what to do, what to fund and who to tax. Through these decisions, through these choices, the character of a government is revealed. As the old aphorism attributed to former United States Vice-President Joe Biden goes: 'Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value.'
Unfortunately, the measures in this budget show that the Turnbull government values millionaires, multinationals and Malcolm Turnbull, and not much else. With the removal of the deficit levy on 1 July, millionaires will get a tax cut of over $16,000, paid for by tax increases on average Australians. Australians earning $65,000 a year will pay an extra $325 in income tax this year as a result of the increase to the Medicare levy put forward in this budget. Australians earning $80,000 will pay an extra $400 this year. Multinationals and Australia's biggest corporations will get a $65 billion tax cut, around 40 per cent of which, it has been estimated, will be shipped directly offshore in dividends to overseas based investors, according to research conducted by UTS. And the Prime Minister will get a political band-aid for the issues that he is bleeding on politically. They include a reduction in the cut to Australian school funding from $30 billion to $22 billion. We are expected to congratulate the government on this. It is as though they have robbed a bank and returned 25 per cent of the proceeds, and are expecting a pat on the back for it. It is not the way it works in the community. They also include the removal of the Medicare Benefit Schedule freeze on a small minority of medical services over the coming years, and a bank levy that will raise revenue for the government, true, but will be immediately passed on by the banks to either Australian consumers or Australian bank shareholders.
There is no vision in this budget for the kind of nation that we want to build. There is no narrative, no economic leadership, for a strategy to confront the structural economic challenges that Australia now faces. There is no coherent agenda, just fix ups for vested interests and political band-aids designed to stop what remains of the government's support from bleeding away.
I do want to call out a few areas of the budget that have received less attention in the media and that fail the 'fairness' test that the Prime Minister has set for himself and his government under this budget. The first issue I will talk about in this respect is Australian aid. Yet again, this budget reveals a coalition government walking away from Australia's obligations as a good international citizen. We on this side of the House were, obviously, disappointed when the Abbott-Turnbull government dropped the bipartisan target of growing Australia's aid budget of 0.5 per cent of GNI, but it is the cuts that really hurt. Australian aid cuts have very serious real-world consequences. Australian aid goes directly to the most vulnerable in the world, providing health services, education, gender support and disaster and climate resilience.
The campaign for Australian aid has quantified what some of the impacts of these cuts were. If we consider that in the last year Australian aid helped 1.8 million girls and boys enrol in school, trained 100,000 teachers, provided 4.6 million textbooks to kids in the Pacific, provided vaccinations for 2.8 million girls and boys around the world, provided clean drinking water to 2.3 million households and provided emergency relief in response to disasters like the Nepal earthquake, Cyclone Pam in Vanuatu and recent famines in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, these cuts have life and death consequences. They mean that children will not get vaccinations, girls will not go to school and women who are experiencing violence in Third World countries will not receive support.
These cuts—$300 million in the most recent budget—come on top of the $11.3 billion cuts to Australian aid that have been implemented by the Abbott-Turnbull government since coming to office. As a result, the Australian aid budget is now at its lowest level, as a proportion of gross national income, on record. Most observers in the aid sector thought that after the enormous cuts of previous budgets the government would say, 'Enough,' and would leave the aid sector to regroup and adapt to the new disappointing Australian aid baseline. But, as I said earlier, in the most recent budget the Turnbull government cut a further $300 million from Australian aid, delivering the weakest Australian aid budget in history—spending just 23 cents in every $100 of gross national income on foreign aid. By linking the Australian aid budget to CPI over the next decade it will continue to weaken over time, reaching a new low of 0.17 per cent of GNI.
The justification for this abdication of Australia's role in the international community was, again, the budget deficit, as if we were the only country in the world dealing with fiscal challenges. It is worth noting that the Conservative United Kingdom government—confronting a budget deficit in the order of 50 billion pounds in the last fiscal year and a national debt equivalent to 85 per cent of GDP—did not walk away from its international responsibilities. Indeed, Theresa May, the UK Prime Minister, recommitted just this month, during the current election campaign in that country, to the UK's pledge to spend 0.7 per cent of gross national income on aid.
In response to this announcement, the former Tory chancellor George Osborne tweeted:
Re-commitment to 0.7 per cent aid target very welcome. Morally right, strengthens UK influence and was key to creating modern compassionate Conservatives.
He is right that that was the morally right decision for the United Kingdom to take, and he is right that that decision strengthened the United Kingdom's influence around the world, as it would have strengthened Australian influence. His comments also reveal the extent to which hard line ideologists have killed off any possibility of 'compassionate' conservativism in Australia. These cuts to Australian aid are cuts to the most vulnerable in the world. They are cuts that will mean more children will die from preventable diseases and more girls will miss a chance to get an education. They also reveal the hypocrisy at the heart of ideological conservatives who claim to have compassion for the most vulnerable in our society.
The Treasurer proclaimed in his first speech in this place:
From my faith I derive the values of loving-kindness, justice and righteousness, to act with compassion and kindness, acknowledging our common humanity and to consider the welfare of others; to fight for a fair go for everyone to fulfil their human potential and to remove whatever unjust obstacles stand in their way,
… … …
My vision for Australia is for a nation that is… above all, generous in spirit, to share our good fortune with others, both at home and overseas, out of compassion and a desire for justice.
It is appropriate that we judge members of this chamber against their first speeches. They are meaningful. But a budget that takes the Australian aid budget to the lowest level on record does not meet these values. These values are abjectly missing from the government's further aid cuts.
Unsurprisingly, the Treasurer's failure was endorsed by the Australian Christian Lobby, who congratulated the Treasurer for his 'commendable' and 'positive' message that he would like to increase Australian aid sometime in the future. ACL managing director, Lyle Shelton, had the gall to issue a press release that stated:
Mr Morrison made it clear that aid remained a government priority and in reflecting his own views said that he looked forward ‘to the day when we can be more generous'.
Mr Shelton further stated:
The aspiration to increase foreign aid, espoused today by Treasurer Morrison, will go some way in restoring confidence in Australia’s commitment to be generous to the world's poor.
I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that Mr Shelton was surely the only person in Australia whose confidence in the Australian aid budget was restored during budget week.
Despite claiming that Australian aid is a priority in the face of more than $11 billion in cuts to Australian aid from this government, if you visit the ACL website the only petitions and campaigns you will see on the home page are for a marriage equality plebiscite, the opposition of the Safe Schools program and the very worthy cause of opposing the genocide in Syria and Iraq against Christians and minority groups. If you click through to their 'Issues' pages, you will find a page that notes:
Sadly Australia has failed to meet its MDG—
Millennium Development Goals—
targets and groups like ACL and others are working to encourage the Australian Government to recommit to meeting our MDG targets.
Australians can judge for themselves just how hard they are actually working.
Labor went to the last election with a policy of stopping the clock on further cuts to the Australian aid budget and growing it over time. The greatest challenge to Australia's development assistance trajectory now is a lack of bipartisan support, which is what we have seen in the United Kingdom. Without bipartisan support, it is much harder for either side to protect the budget from further cuts.
Another issue of fairness in this budget, where the fairness test has failed, that I want to touch on briefly here today that has not attracted significant media attention is with respect to the new long-stay parent visa class that was introduced in the days leading up to this budget. There are a number of injustices in this situation. I should explain that there are currently around 500,000 Australians with Indian heritage. It is a very significant issue in their community—the ability for them to bring their parents from India to be with their family as they establish a new generation in Australia. The primacy of parents and of older generations in subcontinent and Asian families more broadly is very significant. It is no exaggeration to say that this is the most important thing in these families' lives.
Before the election, both parties made a commitment to creating a visa class that would enable Australian-Indian families—or families of any ethnic background, I should say—to bring their parents to Australia to stay with them while their children were young. This would not be a cost to the Commonwealth. All costs would be borne by the sponsors. So private health insurance would be covered by the sponsors and a bond would be issued by the sponsors to ensure that, if anything went astray and the parents needed to return to India or needed medical treatment that was not covered by private health insurance, the bond would cover it.
Unfortunately, what we see in the implementation of this commitment by the government in the latest budget is the removal of a bond and its replacement with a visa fee. There is a very important distinction. A bond, you get back at the end of a visa claim, whereas a fee you will never see again. The fee is for bringing parents to Australia. A five-year visa attracts a $10,000 fee. A three-year visa comes at a cost of $5,000. It is not a bond; you do not get it back. That is a fee. In fact, the budget books $26 million of government revenue from this visa class in 2018-19, rising to $44 million of revenue in 2020-21.
I have heard from many of my constituents about the anger that they feel as a result of this change in policy from the election campaign to government. The Australian-Indian community feel like they are being taken for a ride. They feel like their family relationships—they commitment to their parents—is being used as a cash cow by this government. They are angry that the commitment for a bond has been changed to a fee. They used words like 'lies', 'deception' and 'deceit' when they talked about this with me. Not only are they angry about being squeezed for money through this visa class; they are also angry about the very unfortunate family dynamics that this new visa class is going to create, because, as was not revealed before the election, this visa class will be limited for each family to one of their sets of grandparents. So even families with the means to bring out mum's parents and dad's parents, under this visa class, will have to choose: is it mum's parents or is it dad's parents?
I would like to ask the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and the assistant minister responsible for this visa class whether they have any advice to Indian-Australians—to husbands and wives—about how to have this conversation. I know that it is not a conversation that I would relish having with my wife—whether to bring my mother-in-law and father-in-law to Australia or my parents. I think that would be a very divisive and awkward conversation. There is no need for this cap. There is no need for this visa class to force families to make this choice. If families can afford to bring both categories of parent—both sides of the family—to Australia, they ought to be permitted to. They should not be forced by the government to decide. Members of my community are very angry about this. They told me and the member for Lalor and the shadow immigration minister, Shayne Neumann, about their anger at a recent immigration forum that we held in Wyndham, just to the west of my electorate. It was very well attended, and tensions ran very high. This change certainly does not meet the fairness test from the budget.
Another very important part of the budget that has not attracted media attention is the cut to TAFE and vocational funding in this budget. Under this federal budget, Victoria will see cuts of $128 million each year to TAFE and vocational education. Instead of investing in local jobs and skills, the Prime Minister's unfair budget cuts funding to TAFE, vocational education and apprenticeships by over $600 million in total. In my electorate, youth unemployment is well over 20 per cent. Ensuring that kids who are not able to complete school or who are not going on to tertiary education still have that post-high school education to enable them to increase their skills in order to get a job is a very significant issue. Similarly, underemployment is at a record high, and wages growth is at a record low.
In this context, these cuts to TAFE and vocational education come at the worst possible time for Melbourne's west. The number of government funded TAFE students fell by over 20 per cent between 2013 and 2015, and my electorate was particularly affected. Victorian universities are one of the most significant public TAFE providers in Victoria. They felt these cuts acutely. In the last 12 months alone, trade apprenticeship commencements have dropped by 10.5 per cent. Again, we felt this acutely in Melbourne's west. We used to have significant numbers of apprenticeships being taken on at the Williamstown shipyards. The 1,400 jobs that have been lost there used to include over 100 apprenticeships. Those are long gone. What Bill Shorten committed Labor to in the budget reply was to work to ensure that one in every 10 jobs on every single priority infrastructure project funded by the federal government goes to an Australian apprenticeship. That would have meant at least 2,600 apprenticeship places in the context of the last election. That would have made a realistic difference to young people in my electorate.
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (17:02): On the anniversary of the address on the forgotten people from Robert Menzies, I cannot help but look and see:
… the kind of people I myself represent in Parliament—salary earners, shopkeepers, skilled artisans, professional men and women, farmers, and so on. These are, in the political and economic sense, the middle class. They are for the most part unorganized and unselfconscious. They are envied by those whose social benefits are largely obtained by taxing them. They are not rich enough to have individual power. They are taken for granted by each political party in turn. They are not sufficiently lacking in individualism to be organized for what in these days we call "pressure politics". And yet, as I have said, they are the backbone of the nation.
To that I would add retirees, teachers, nurses, ambos, firies, public servants, and I will come to some others in a moment.
Before I address the issues that I would like to bring to this debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018 and related bills today, I say: vale Louise Williams, 18 April 2017. I am a co-chair of the asbestos awareness group in the parliament, and this lady, Lou Williams, addressed us on a number of occasions. She passed away on the morning of 18 April. Lou was a long-surviving mesothelioma patient, being first diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma in 2013 at the age of 48. Since then she went through many rounds of treatment, receiving Keytruda for the past couple of years. She was a strong fighter for those who have been diagnosed with an asbestos related disease and for their families, a voice for the Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia, the Australian national director for the Global Ban Asbestos Network, and she also worked with the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization in the United States.
Lou was deeply involved with the agency from day one, participating wherever she could and attending our conferences in Melbourne in 2014 and Brisbane in 2015. Unfortunately, her health did not allow her to travel to Adelaide in 2016, so she sent a video of support. As a little girl, she used asbestos as a crayon whilst her father was building a back room on their house. Then he also built her and her sister a cubby house out of the leftover asbestos. He was a contractor in asbestos. He died at 54 years of age. To do the right thing, she used to back his car out for him and, as she used to tell us, 'The dust rose up in the car all around.' Of course, it was asbestos dust. Here we have an amazing girl. When you actually met her and talked to her—and I have a photograph of her here which is absolutely beautiful—you would swear that there was nothing wrong with her, but there most certainly was. We are going to lose thousands and thousands of people, probably mostly connected to many others in our district, in our close area, and in our broader area. There could be as many as 200,000 people who will suffer from mesothelioma and die. Vale, Lou Williams.
I have a letter from an old mate of mine, Tony Calabro, who is a guitar player. I have had a bit to do with music in my life. He said to me:
Good morning Russell,
With the latest announcement of the closure of the Morwell mill—
which is a timber mill in the middle of the township of Morwell—
this is the last kick in the guts Morwell and the Latrobe Valley needed at this time. I'm sure you realise that.
This is also a good time for all governments, State and Federal, to take up the opportunity of doing something really, really special for our Region. If fate gives you a lemon, make lemonade. If governments don't offer help, assistance and offer real incentives in a fairdinkum way, and ASAP, then I believe the people of the Latrobe Valley will make governments pay a big price at the next election; wait and see. I have been talking with dozens of people recently and I am only telling you what you probably realise. I'm only a guitar teacher—
but a beautiful guitar player—
I've only taught close to 12,000 people which means I have been in direct contact with about 60,000 people or more, students and their families, so what the heck do I know? I believe, it's time for all governments to really think more laterally, dig deep, and do something positive for this amazing region, Latrobe Valley, Gippsland. This area deserves better support than it has been given in the past and it is about time governments of all political persuasions really demonstrates to our people that they really care. Well done is better than well said. Who do we vote for in the next election?
Thanks for listening, I hope you can fight for us,
Tony and Mary Calabro
Tony, there is your letter.
Recently I have thought about what we actually have done. I jotted down eight things, very quickly, that we have done that directly affect people. The government, for the first time, is looking at a review of the petroleum resources rent tax—never done that before. For the first time, we are saying, 'We've got to intervene in regard to affordable gas for households'—never done that before. For the first time, we are looking into affordable gas for manufacturing—and I will come back to that. We put a tariff on imported paper, because we had copy paper being dumped here from all over the world, which was directly affecting the paper mill at Morwell. We have got consideration of new coal-fired power stations, which would have been unheard of even six months ago. The government has explained its opposition to the ban on gas exploration. We actually did something about the 457 visas that were hurting locals. Where we have failed: the Heyfield mill, which 6,000 people extended rely on and the benefits that also go to the paper mill from its leftovers, is under threat and the state government do not know what to do about it.
There is one thing that I have never forgotten as the member for McMillan, and I go back to my first stint. I was introduced to Oliver Raymond and his wife, Carolyn, who were very closely connected to the paper mill. There were 1,200 workers there at the time. They were real people, real families and real jobs—good jobs. They were under threat at that time. They are still under threat today for two reasons. One is the gas prices I mentioned before for manufacturing. We are doing a deal for gas so that we can address that. We are going to give them some support in other areas. But, more importantly, we recognise for the first time that they were unfairly competing on the world market, and the government were prepared to do something about it on behalf of local people and local jobs—real people, real families and real jobs. I have repeated it. We have never done that before. I think about what Oliver and Carolyn taught me about what local representation is all about. I have never ever forgotten my representation on behalf of the CMFEU forestry division that were connected to that mill. I have never forgotten them. They were part of my defeat in 1998 but I have never forgotten them. They are still in my mind today when I make decisions. I still want their jobs, creating the best paper in the world, the most environmentally sensitive paper in the world, coming out of that mill, and that mill is under threat.
I believe governments have a responsibility to the workers—not to the owners, but to the Australian people—that we can actually have copy paper that comes from us. There is a responsibly also in this place for government departments to use it. 'No, no, no, we have signed an agreement with the suppliers where they can source of wherever they like, as long as they get the best price they like.' Well, we are actually the government and we can direct departments to do what we ask. Are we afraid to direct government departments or are we completely in the hands of a contract signed on some old forgotten bit of paper? Gentle on My Mind was the song—some old contract signed on some bit of paper that I am beholden to. Well, I am not beholden to that. I am saying that this is a new time and we are in a new world. We are in a world market where we need to address ourselves to our people. If that means making decisions, I made decisions in my business on behalf of my staff and my family, not necessarily in my best interests, not necessarily things that were pure. Honest, yes, but not necessarily pure—that is, put the owners first. In fact, on many occasions, because of the locality of our business and the importance of my business to their families, we did lots of things that benefited their families before it benefited the business. The purists would say, 'Well, you had it all wrong, Russell.' No, I had it right, because my staff never left until the businesses were wound up. The world changed—Coles and Myer came into my area.
I really wanted to say today that we want some honesty in government from both sides of this House. We just saw an argument a few moments ago from the member for Gellibrand, where he talked about the education exercise in which the government has said they are going to put $18 billion extra into education over 10 years. Everybody said that was great, but then the opposition came along and said 'Yes, but we will borrow.' I said, 'Why not use the word borrow?' because I had the strange experience of an opposition front bencher yelling at the other side, 'You are doing this with all borrowed money—the $18 billion.' Well, an extra $22 billion—where is that going to come from? That is going to be borrowed money, too. Ross Gittins has an article in the paper today in which he says, 'Gee, do you think we are getting full value for the money we are spending on our universities? Do you really think we are getting full value? Do you really think they are getting full value for the money we are spending on our junior primary, primary and secondary schools? We are putting more money in but our outcomes are sliding internationally.' So, isn't there another way in which we are going to have to look at these things before we say 'We are going to pour more money into education, because that is the answer, and that is the only answer.' Yet at the same time we are getting worse outcomes than we were getting before.
All I am asking is that I do not have to go to my local community and say, 'Here are your schools—Pakenham Springs, Pakenham Primary School, Pakenham Consolidated, Pakenham Lakes and Pakenham Secondary College, of which I am a former board member, and all my children went there—and you are going to lose all this money over three years.' In fact, they are getting a major increase in their funds over the next three, four and five years. It is dishonest. It is dishonest politics. It is not fair. It scares people and people are out there taking advantage of an argument between politicians that is completely unreasonable and unfair, and the politicians know it.
If I do not fit the pattern of what you have to be to be a politician in this place, I do not resile from that and I do not apologise. I will tell the truth. I will say what we are doing right and wrong, and I will say it again tomorrow on another issue. I will say it loudly. I will speak loudly on behalf of my people, because I do not like to see the transfer of funds from regions to cities.
I do not care how that money is transferred because I know that, when there is a mill in Morwell that is operating well, the only reason that that mill is not going on is because it is not getting the timber that it needs. The only problem that is happening at Heyfield is, because of a possum, we are not getting the timber we need. Just to explain: every time they find a Leadbeater's possum, they put a circle around it that has a radius of 250 metres. It was meant to stop at 30. They are up to 169 now, and there are a whole lot of areas you just cannot go into and it is continuing.
It was meant to stop at 39. I have called on the CFMEU to help me. Those people need the resources of those forests, which was agreed to in our Regional Forest Agreements and with all the pain that we went through between 1996 and 1998. This government spent millions on those Regional Forest Agreements, and we expect them to be carried through on behalf of our communities. Instead of that, they are being ignored by a state government that does not care. They just want a great big, new national park north of Melbourne which they can announce in the run-up to the next election for green votes in the cities.
I will tell you who I represent: I represent real people with real jobs—people who are prepared to go out and have a go. Whenever you think you are doing it hard, just think of that dairy farmer who, seven days a week, no matter what the weather is outside—and we have had some pretty crap weather—is out there. I remember going out to give an award to a farmer one day. The lady I was giving the award to walked out wearing a hat, funny woollen clothes and funny pants. I asked, 'Who am I giving the award to?' She said, 'Me.' I asked, 'What are you dressed like that for?' She said: 'I gotta milk, Russell. I'm leaving you with this. I've gotta milk.' Today we need to stand up for people who are doing real work and making a great contribution to this country, and I will.
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (17:17): As I rise today to speak about the 2017-18 budget—Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018—the fourth since my election as a member of the Australian parliament, I want to highlight to the residents of Indi my focus on the electorate I proudly call home. My vision for Indi is for a community that works with its leaders and representatives to develop opportunities for growth and solutions to challenges as they arise. It is a vision for a prosperous and caring community which values inclusiveness, diversity, honesty and the hard work of all those who seek to realise the goal of making life in our part of regional and rural Australia the best it can be and admired by all.
Today in this speech, I will focus on three main topics: the findings of the Indi survey on the budget, the priority of regional higher education, and I will conclude with my actions on behalf of my community and the next steps in the process of engagement.
Since the Turnbull government's second budget was handed down, I have been listening to my community's responses—what they liked, what failed to hit the mark and what suggestions they would make that would help the government to improve the lives of all those living in rural and regional Australia. The message has been clear—there is a high level of inequality supported by policy that does not consider regional Australia, and too many policy and funding models are based on metropolitan populations. We have just heard very strongly—endorsed by the member for McMillan—that same point.
I will go to the survey. My community is familiar with my call for their opinions. After the 2014 and 2015 budgets, I toured Indi to gauge their priorities and suggestions. Alongside the meetings and informal gatherings in towns and cities throughout the electorate, the phone calls received and walk-ins to my electorate offices by those wanting to share their thoughts, this year I have also sought to engage online with constituents. So thank you to all those individuals, who made in excess of 1,000 responses to my survey.
In summary, 54 per cent of responses were from women; 41.7 per cent were from people aged 41 to 64; and 33.6 per cent were from people aged over 65. Most heartening for me of all that has been done was that young people aged between 14 and 25 heard my call to share their thoughts and opinions. Increasingly, they are responding to my commitment to them to ensure that young people's voices are heard by this government. Almost 140 young people, or 17 per cent of the survey's respondents, got online and on their phones and let me know what they thought about a budget that will play a major role in shaping their futures.
During the week following the budget, I hosted three young people's breakfasts, in Wodonga, Wangaratta and Benalla. Youth workers Anthony Nicholson and Rachel Habgood, of Wodonga; Tom Arnold, of Wangaratta; and Amanda Aldous, of Benalla, together with my staff, were instrumental in bringing together these young people before they headed to school, university and TAFE and to work. And their message was clear: to recognise their energy and commitment and remove the barriers to their education, employment and wellbeing.
Many of these young people made mention of the government's proposed changes to higher education, rightly arguing that rural students should be on an equal footing with their metropolitan counterparts. These proposed changes will further disadvantage young people in my electorate, forcing them to pay higher university fees on top of housing, transport and other living costs that they must pay when they move away from home.
Some respondents argued that Australia can afford to educate its citizens for free, in turn creating a smarter workforce with better paid jobs, who pay their taxes and thus provide a higher standard of living for us all. They encouraged the government to support schools in lower socioeconomic areas ahead of wealthier schools and in turn lift overall standards in our clever country and to provide additional financial support to students in regional and rural areas through more scholarships, bursaries and grants, helping them to meet the added costs of their relocation.
Deputy Speaker, I give notice that next week, as a result of this survey, I will introduce a notice of motion seeking to provide financial incentives for those wanting to study in rural and regional areas.
The proposed tertiary education changes are also a challenge for regional universities in their bid to provide relevant degree courses in the regions. The Vice-Chancellor of La Trobe University, Professor John Dewar, describes the budget as a 'triple whammy' for regional higher education, incorporating three threats to the university's long-term viability. The first is by increasing student contributions and lowering the threshold at which the debt becomes payable. He believes that demand will fall among regional students. They already participate in higher education at a much lower rate than their city counterparts, and many are the first member in their family to go university. The need has never been greater for a highly educated and skilled regional workforce. Economic development and job creation in Indi will be dependent on the skills provided by postsecondary education. We want more, not fewer, students studying.
The second blow, says Professor Dewar, is the likelihood that the demand-driven system will continue to take a growing number of regional students away from their communities and to city universities, which is known as the 'brain drain'—present company excepted. Alarmingly, already that number has increased by more than 76 per cent between 2008 and 2014.
The third and final blow is the rising cost of delivering courses at regional campuses. Professor Dewar argues that there is no budget measure that will address higher costs for regional universities, which want to remain in their regional communities.
I welcome the government's commitment to an independent review of regional, rural and remote education, led by Emeritus Professor John Halsey, of Flinders University. The latest advice from the federal Minister for Education and Training, Senator Simon Birmingham, and his department is that this review will cover the full gamut of education throughout rural and regional Australia, from preschool through to university and the transition to work. The final report is due by the end of the year. I will invite Professor Halsey to visit Indi and meet the education community, families, employers, government agencies and students.
Education was one of three priorities in my survey, rated among the most important by a staggering 92 per cent of all those who responded to the budget survey. The next priorities were health and welfare at 93 per cent, and the environment and renewable energy came third at 89 per cent. Also important to more than 70 per cent of respondents was employment, passenger train services and regional policy, the NBN and mobile phone blackspots.
There was much good news for Indi in the budget. My community welcomed the $100 million to finally fix the North East rail line. Led by the Hume Rail Corridor Group and the Border Rail Action Group, many years of hard work has made the case for providing an updated, reliable, punctual and comfortable passenger rail service between the Albury-Wodonga and Melbourne. This service has the potential to deliver up to 385,000 extra trips a year, benefitting the economies of all towns and cities in my electorate, driving economic growth and improving quality of life. It is time this overdue project is delivered and no more money or time is wasted. It is time for a plan that makes crystal clear the responsibilities of all stakeholders, the timetables and the outcomes that must be met. Today in question time I asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport to take the leadership role to make this happen.
Increased investment in roads and infrastructure programs will support the electorate's nine local governments to build their communities and address real need. We welcome the increase in Roads to Recovery funding by $50 million per annum, continuation of the Stronger Communities Program, which is a great program for our communities, and the announcement of round 2 of the Building Better Regions Fund, another program that is delivering enormous benefits in the country areas. I also welcome the lifting of the financial assistance grants indexation freeze. I particularly welcome improved mental health services for veterans of the Australian Defence Forces, the energy offset payment for pensioners and the $4.7 billion investment in inland rail. What a difference that is going to make to rural and regional Australia—truly nation-building.
Indi is well placed to claim a share of the $1.5 billion announced in the budget for vocational training and employment skills programs. Vocational education leaders in my electorate have made progress to develop local and cross-border training programs for young people in the north-east. These programs will go a long way to improving the options for the more than 15,000 young people in my electorate aged between 15 and 24. Minister, can I say what a delight it was to have you in my electorate. Thank you for your support for this really important age group.
On health, there is a strong view that it should be higher income earners who bear the cost of the Medicare levy and there is an expectation that lifting the freeze on GP co-payments should see more bulk-billing services in small rural towns. There is recognition of the burden of the higher cost of health services, particularly the rising costs of private health care to a declining membership.
Deputy Speaker Morton, as you know as a rural person, country people are innovative and no more so than in my electorate. I will work with the community on the many suggestions and solutions they offered as part of the survey: incentives for specialists for regional areas; greater use of remote diagnostics via the internet; the increased need for funding for appropriate mental health services for the young, right through to our senior citizens; and funding for aged care and pension payments, particularly for the pensioners reliant on rental accommodation and those whose incomes are not supplemented by retirement savings. The introduction of the National Disability Insurance Scheme is welcome and its funding via an increased Medicare levy is viewed as a positive move by government to improve services in the long term, particularly for the disabled and their families. However, there is a note of caution among respondents that the money needs to be spent wisely for those most in need.
On the environment and renewable energy, there is a clear push throughout Indi for sustainability and financial support to make the most of renewable energy sources. Rising costs of energy have impacted heavily, both domestically and on businesses and is a particular concern to the people in my electorate. The respondents, however, made clear that there is strong opposition to coal and coal seam gas exploration and objection to tax-funded support for those operating within this sector. Indi residents want the government to plan for the effects of climate change, and they seek support for the development of solar and wind energy.
The largest number of submissions to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network into the rollout of the NBN came from Indi, and my community reinforced their comments, saying that copper wire is outdated and that the NBN program should utilise fibre-optic cabling. Moving from ADSL to NBN is described by some as a complete shambles, and many are indignant at the slow pace of the rollout. Those unable to access the NBN resort to expensive mobile broadband, and slow internet speeds make it very difficult for young people to study. Indi has been blessed to receive funding to address 38 mobile phone blackspots, but the pace of the rollout is slow. Emergency services during fire seasons continue to be impacted by black spots, and it is not just remote areas where services are poor; some areas very close to the city have no coverage.
In summary, the Indi budget survey has identified health, education and environment as the electorate's major priorities. The percentage of respondents who highlighted their priorities were 93 per cent for health and welfare; 92 per cent for education; 89 per cent for renewable energy; 88 per cent for employment; 82 per cent for trains; 78 per cent for regional policy; 76 per cent for the NBN; and 58 per cent for the arts. The next step is my publishing of the report and the distribution to the more than 400 constituents who asked for a hard copy. There will be a new round of kitchen table conversations and the second Indi Summit in 2018.
In closing, I highlight my vision for Indi, a prosperous and caring community. I look forward to reporting back to my electorate, reflecting the priorities they have highlighted. I highlight my commitment to work with the Minister for Education and Training on higher education, to work with the Prime Minister for a minister for youth, and to work with my community so we are not just coming and asking the government to solve the problems but doing it together. Finally, thank you to the people of Indi. It is an absolute pleasure to be your representative.
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (17:32): I rise today to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2017-2018 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018, which deliver the government's 2017-2018 federal budget. It is a unique budget in that much of the debate and commentary has been fixated on its nature rather than its content. It has been characterised, rather than analysed. It has been labelled, rather than examined in the context of the political realities we face. I think that is an important point.
I totally respect the right of people—and of course that includes those on my own side of politics—to be critical and to make judgements on ideological grounds and to argue their convictions. The bottom line is that this budget is about striking a balance, a balance that will achieve our objectives of budget repair and reducing government spending and still provide the essential services the Australian public want and expect like quality education; a secure Medicare and PBS; and the NDIS, to help those most in need. We have to meet these goals, despite starting behind the eight ball because the Senate has already rejected of $13 billion in savings measures from previous budgets.
This budget makes the right choices now to build on our gains and create a more prosperous future. It is a budget based on delivering fairness, security and opportunity for all; a budget that recognises that many Australians are doing it tough. It is a budget that provides the conditions for stronger economic growth to create more and better paying jobs, including delivery of continuing support for small businesses and greater training opportunities for our young people. It is a budget that guarantees the essentials, including securing Medicare, restoring the pensioner concession card and tackling cost-of-living pressures by delivering energy security, boosting education funding and providing better access to child care for working families.
Importantly, it is a budget that ensures the government lives within its means with a plan to return the budget to surplus by 2020-21. I want to make this point very clear: this is not a tax-and-spend budget. Higher revenues have been allocated for two different purposes; the first is filling the hole left by savings opposed by the Senate for which Labor and the Greens are primarily responsible; and the second is strengthening the budget, including fully funding the NDIS.
I would like to make a serious point about the NDIS: when they were in government, Labor raised expectations and made all sorts of grandiose promises but failed to provide adequate funding for the scheme, so that task has fallen to us. We will not let those people who are living with a disability and their families suffer because of Labor's failings.
As I said at the outset, budget repair and strengthening the budget remain key objectives, as they always are, for coalition governments, and the fact is: our decisions have improved the budget by $6.3 billion over the next five years even after taking into account reversing measures that were blocked by the Senate. This is considerably better than recent updates—for example, last year's MYEFO had an improvement of just $2.5 billion. Last year's budget delivered an improvement of $1.7 billion. Real spending is expected to grow by just 1.9 per cent on average over the forward estimates—the same pace as it was in the 2016-17 budget and the 2016 MYEFO, and much lower than the 3.5 five per cent we inherited from Labor.
Compared with the projections in the 2015 budget, the government will spend a total of $26 billion less over the period 2015-16 to 2018-19, and this is because we recognise that the first step in paying down the debt is getting the budget back to surplus. So there can be no mistake, we are continuing to work solidly and surely towards budget repair and returning the budget to surplus. By the same token, we know that the public expect the government to take decisive action to tackle some of the challenges we face. And so we have with a plan to deliver vital infrastructure; a plan to improve housing affordability; to secure our energy supply for the future; and to provide $18.6 billion in practical needs based funding for our schools.
I am particularly proud, as Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills, of our plan to establish a new Skilling Australians Fund to work in partnership with the states to deliver an additional 300,000 apprenticeships. It is all about putting Australian jobs and Australian skills first, and ensuring our businesses have access to the best skilled workforce possible. It is funded in part by a new levy on foreign workers, and I look forward to working with the states and territories to deliver the skills outcome we need for the future.
As I travel around the country, I see so many positive, practical things being achieved in the vocational education sector. I am very proud that our government has recognised the significance of the sector by boosting funding in the budget.
I want to spend a few moments in this debate talking about the benefits for my electorate of McPherson on the Gold Coast, because, whilst I am honoured to the part of the ministry, my first duty is always to my constituents—the wonderful people of the southern Gold Coast. We have a large seniors population on the Gold Coast, who I am sure will welcome the reinstatement of the pensioner concession card; the one-off payment to help with cost-of-living pressures; the securing of Medicare and bulk-billing; and the extension of a number of medicines on the PBS. I also know my veterans will welcome reforms to improve the services of the DVA.
As I have said many times in this place, the Gold Coast is the small business capital of our nation, and the huge raft of reforms that our government has introduced to support and encourage the small business sector are a boost for our local economy, including the historic tax cuts and the enterprise tax plan. I welcome the extension of the $20,000 asset write-off for a further year to encourage business investment and expansion. Having already cut federal red tape by $5.8 billion during our government, this budget offers up to $300 million in incentives to states and territories that remove unnecessary regulatory barriers. Cutting red tape means giving businesses more time to grow and create jobs.
Our ongoing investment in national infrastructure is vital. I have fought and will continue to fight for funding to widen the M1 from Varsity Lakes to Tugun and complete this vital project. I was delighted we were finally able to reach agreement with the state government earlier this year to get works underway for the crucial section from Mudgeeraba to Varsity Lakes. I am also pleased that funding for planning the improvements further south was included as part of that agreement. I would like to say to my constituents, the people of the southern Gold Coast, that the upgrade from Mudgeeraba to Varsity is but the next stage in the widening that I will be fighting to make sure goes all the way through to Tugun, as was the original agreement back in 2007. We have to make sure that something as vital as the M1 does not just get stuck in the planning stage forever. We are talking about the major coastal link between Brisbane and Sydney, so completing the M1 is imperative and I can assure the people of McPherson and the southern Gold Coast that I will be keeping up that fight.
I have also pledged to advocate for the extension of the existing rail line from Varsity Lakes to Coolangatta airport. In this budget, the government is investing $10 billion in a new National Rail Program. We recognise that rail lines have the potential to be true city-shaping pieces of infrastructure. The transformational impact of linking the Gold Coast Airport with rail infrastructure into Brisbane and South-East Queensland has great benefits for local tourism and will help ease congestion on our roads. So I will be advocating for that major project on behalf of my constituents and I certainly hope that the Queensland government will work with us in securing the funding required.
Finally, I want to return to something I touched on at the start. This budget is about achieving the attainable—a balanced and measured response to the challenges our nation faces. This budget should have the greatest chance of passing through the parliament, given it has been characterised as the least partisan in a long time. That is why I am disappointed and disturbed that Labor seems determined to work to block crucial elements of the budget and, in so doing, create a new potential black hole of $14 billion. I note that recently The Australian reported:
At least $14 billion in key budget measures faces a Senate blockade, undermining the Turnbull government's attempt to reset its reform agenda as crossbenchers begin talks with Labor in a bid to expand the controversial big-banks tax.
The article continued:
New budget measures in trouble include the 2.5 per cent Medicare levy meant to fully fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme, random drug testing of welfare recipients, the revised higher education package, "Gonski 2.0" school funding changes and the superannuation saver scheme for first-home buyers.
This is a thoroughly irresponsible approach by a Labor Party intent on creating division and chaos. How in good conscience can they reject things like Gonski and the NDIS—things they supposedly believe in but apparently just do not want to pay for? It can only be for political reasons. It beggars belief that they would try to create a new $14 billion black hole, when we have just moved to fix the last one.
With continuing Senate intransigence to the government's first preference of genuine savings, in this budget we had to step in to do something to preserve our nation's AAA credit rating and stop piling debt on the shoulders of our children and our grandchildren. To do otherwise would have been economically irresponsible. For the purposes of assessing our AAA rating, the ratings agencies have made it clear that they would not take into account spending cuts we factor into the budget that have no prospect of passing through the Senate. Hence, we reversed over $13 billion of such measures in this budget. But Labor want to continue to put our economy in jeopardy by turning around and creating a new budget black hole by opposing completely reasonable and fair measures in this budget. I implore members opposite to stop the class warfare, stop the empty populist politicking, look into their hearts and recognise that this budget is an opportunity for all sides of politics to come together for the benefit of our nation. We must be able to come together as Australians and act in the national interest. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the House and in the Senate to pass these budget measures and allow the government to get on with the job we were elected to do. I commend these bills to the House.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (17:44): As the dust settles and the details clear on the 2017 budget, we see that there is much to be disappointed in. This is not a budget for the Illawarra, the South Coast and the Southern Highlands—the regions that I represent. There is not a dollar in it for the long awaited Maldon-Dombarton rail link which will connect our port to the inland rail routes. There is not a dollar in it for a bridge over the Shoalhaven River which would help those thousands of people who each week make their way from the Illawarra and from places further north down south to the Shoalhaven. There is not a dollar in it for affordable housing; although we heard a lot about affordable housing in the lead up to the budget. It has nothing for our pensioners who have worked hard for generations, saving a little to put forward for their retirement.
The budget has got more in it which is about spin than substance. It cuts money away from our schools; in fact, $22 billion over the forwards and beyond for school education—$20 million from my own electorate. It increases student fees, cuts funding to universities and, through these two initiatives, ensures that class sizes will be larger and the quality of education will decline. It sees the reduction in employment with over 95,000 fewer jobs over the forward estimates. In fact, there has never been a budget which is more pessimistic about the future of employment than this government's budget in 2017. It has assumptions about wages growth in it which go in the exact opposite direction to the government's treatment of its own workers and its campaign, which champions the reduction in penalty rates for workers throughout many industries, particularly those workers who are some of the lowest paid in our economy.
Budgets are a statement of the government's priorities, and the priorities in this budget are not about the wellbeing of the Australian people; they are about one thing—that is, the future of the Liberal Party's leader, the Prime Minister of this country. It is an attempt to convince the people of Australia that the direction set by his predecessor in that universally reviled 2014 program has been reversed. This was a budget that included within it attacks on Medicare; attacks on hospitals, universities, TAFEs and schools, on pensioners and the unemployed, on family payments. It proposed to do damage to family budgets. This program devastated the coalition party politically. However great that political damage was, it was nothing compared to the impact, the human costs that it would have wrought on each of the groups and individuals who were affected by these proposals, each of these wrong turns.
In 2015, the Prime Minister set the standard against which his own government and his own prime ministership will be measured. Thirty consecutive Newspolls show a lack of faith in the government's program. In my view, this is a puerile measure but most Australians can hardly be blamed for holding him to the standard that he has asked them to hold him to. He is halfway through. This budget will do nothing to reverse the political fortunes of his government but, more importantly than that, nothing t reverse the real problems that are being encountered by Australians every day.
The people of Australia are not buying it. A part of the problem that the government faces is that there is no clear vision for what it stands for and what it wants to do for the country. We have, over the last two years alone, been asked to be excited about innovation only to see that dropped like a hot potato. We were then asked to get on board that jobs and growth express only to see that dropped like a hot potato because the projections on jobs and growth in the 2017 budget are so anaemic that they could not possibly champion that as their campaign slogan. We are now asked to believe that there are better days ahead when Australians looking for work see that in this budget there are nearly 100,000 fewer jobs in the economy over the next four years.
We have seen thought bubbles masquerading as serious policy debate only to see them disappear as quickly as the bubble bath that entertains my children at night. Too often we have seen these ideas put out only to be reversed the next day. Is it any wonder that the people of Australia are looking at the 2017-18 budget through the same cynical glasses that they have used to look at the chops and changes, the constant reversals and the overblown rhetoric of this Prime Minister? They are asking themselves, 'What has changed?' Quite simply, the answer is nothing. What we want is an alternative story for Australia and the policies that are going to back it in, particularly for regional Australia.
Too often when city politicians come to this place, they imagine regional Australia as a place to deal with the overflows and the excesses that they are experiencing in the cities—everything from waste to excess of people. If they are not thinking of our regions as somewhere where they can dump the things that they no longer need or they can no longer fit anywhere, they are thinking of our regions as sites of remediation: things that are overwhelmingly different and in need of being fixed. I think of my own region and the regions that I visit as very different places—places that we live in by choice; places, sure, with challenges but with a multitude of assets and unique identities, and so often the custodian of our national legends. To think of our regions in this way does not mean that we ignore growing inequality, particularly the inequality that is growing between those Australians who are living in our capital cities and those who are living in regional, rural and remote Australia.
I look at wages alone, and I see the gaps that are growing in wage inequality in this country. Here, in one dataset, we can see the problem that we are facing. Wage growth in the Australian economy is at its lowest level ever. But, in regional Australia, we compound that issue by the fact that people in regions like my own are already earning wages—if they are lucky enough to have a job—that are well below the national average. When I compare the average wage of somebody working in Dapto at $55,800 a year or in the Shellharbour LGA at a little over $56,700 a year to somebody who is working in the Prime Minister's own electorate at $89,500 a year—and these are averages—is it any wonder that people in regional Australia are saying this is an acute problem? But these calls are falling on deaf ears, and the world that the Prime Minister lives in is a very different place to the one that we live in and represent.
If there has been a debate around this budget that has attracted the focus of the nation, it has been around the priorities for school education and post-school education. If you look at the post-school participation rates in higher education between regional Australia and the capital cities, you will see the pathway to change is getting harder and harder and harder. Participation rates in higher education in the Wollongong and Shellharbour LGAs are between 20 per cent at the lower end and 29 per cent at the upper end—lower high school participation rates than the Australian average. In the Prime Minister's own electorate, they are well in excess of 50 per cent. Is it any wonder that there is no priority for higher education in this budget? The Prime Minister does not see it in the world that he lives in and therefore he does not believe that anybody else has these problems. We have to have a different plan for the region that I represent and a different plan for the rest of the regions in this country.
I want to stress again: I do not subscribe to the deficit model that sees regional Australia as a dumping ground for other people's excess or as a place that needs remediation. We have fantastic assets. We have one of the most beautiful regions in the country. We are connected by the busiest commuter corridor in the country to the largest city in the country. We are connected, mostly, by decent NBN. We have a hell of a lot of copper based NBN in the ground, which is a headache but there is the capacity to change. We have a fantastic regional university. It is not only one of the best in the country but one of the best in the world. We have the capacity to leverage off the enormous strength and depth of knowledge and expertise in heavy manufacturing and engineering. We have some of the smartest and hardest working people in the country. We have the benefit of decades and decades of migration of people from just about every country on earth who have made Australia and our region home—a great connection to the people and the markets of the world.
We have much to be proud of, but this does not mean we turn our backs on the challenges that we need to focus on to make it a better place. The things that are going to make the Illawarra, the South Coast and the Southern Highlands not only a great place to live but a great place to do business and work are things that are going to make us a more connected region by road, rail, sea and, yes, fibre.
If we are going to ensure that this occurs, we need bipartisan support not just within this place but also across three tiers of government which endures across the political cycle. We do not need to see one government, for example, fund the Maldon-Dombarton rail link only to see it half-built and have another government cancel it, leaving a bridge literally half-built and hanging in the air. We need to have consistent long-term policies which are going to see that railway line built, that are going to see investment in the Albion Park Rail M1 bypass, that are going to see the much needed river crossing over the Shoalhaven River built and which are going to see the M1 extension in Sydney, which we call SouthConnex. I know the problems that they face in Western Sydney, but there is life south of Sydney as well and we suffer the same transport links problems. We have one of the busiest rail corridors in the state. Over 20,000 people on a daily basis make their way from the Illawarra, South Coast and Southern Highlands to Sydney city or its western suburbs for work. If we cannot do that in under an hour, we are wasting human capacity, productivity and potential. We can do it much better than we are doing it at the moment.
We have to invest in our people, our human capital, as I have spoken about, which means investing in our schools. The $20 million the government has taken out of schools in my electorate needs to be put back and re-invested in our primary schools and secondary schools. We need to be working together with the state governments to ensure that we can reinvest in our TAFE system, a national icon. People come from other countries all around the world to see this great thing that we built in this country over many governments and over several decades—the TAFE system. It is systematically being dismantled. It is not too late to stop. It needs to stop if we are going to ensure that we can invest in the skills that our nation will need in the future.
I want to see a retirement and income policy that provides people with certainty that if they are saving for the future they will have that nest egg available for them to ensure that they will derive an income from it over the years of a long and happy retirement. We need to set a retirement age which acknowledges that, if you have worked with your body your entire life, you probably are not going to be able to work in heavy, physical, manual labour until you are 70. Your body is going to start breaking down. Yes, people have different capacities, but almost universally if you have worked in backbreaking work for your entire life a retirement age of 70 is not going to cut it.
A dignified society means Medicare. It means the NDIS. It means affordable medicines. It means reasonable income support for people who are looking for work, not demonising the unemployed. While many of these are Labor ideals and values, we invite those across the aisle to join with us in ensuring that these become part of a bipartisan vision for a great country and a great region. Labor cannot do it alone. We need to work with all levels of government and across the aisle to ensure that these things become a reality for my region and our country now and into the future.
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (18:00): The Turnbull government's 2017 budget is one that delivers fairness, security and opportunity, not just for those who live in inner-city metropolitan suburbs but for Australians in regional and rural areas, cities and towns. It makes the right choices for Australians who are working hard to secure the better days ahead for themselves and their families. This budget will grow the country's economy and help secure more and better-paid jobs for all Australians.
We are continuing the solid work of the coalition government since 2013: creating the National Innovation and Science Agenda, which is helping to diversify Australia's economy; protecting Australians through the Defence white paper, which backs local advanced manufacturing in regional Australia; opening up Australia's trade potential through free trade agreements with China, Japan, Korea, and moving into Hong Kong as well; and protecting women and children from domestic violence through the $100 million Women's Safety Package.
Health is the most important facet of life. Health is actually your wealth. This budget delivers on the election commitment to guarantee Medicare and deliver the world's best health system, in which people in regional and rural Australia have access to the best health services and amenities that we can provide. The government's long-term National Health Plan is supported in the budget through guaranteeing Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. As we heard, there are 1,400 new medicines on the PBS, compared to 331 in Labor's last three years. That is really great news for Australians, including people in my electorate, who desperately need the new medications. We are supporting hospitals, prioritising mental and preventive health and continuing our investment in medical research. These are the measures that will make a real, genuine difference in my electorate of Forrest and throughout regional Australia.
As Nelson Mandela said, 'Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.' Students in the South-West will be better off under the government's education policy. Schools in Forrest will receive $119 million more from the federal government next year, an increase of over 6.4 per cent, and over the following three years federal government funding to schools in Forrest will grow by over 20 per cent. It is a massive increase.
Under our plan, federal funding to schools will be distributed on a needs basis, something that all of us should be supportive of. Our plan gives all Australian schools a fair go, wiping away the 27 secret special deals that Labor signed up to, which were actually quite a slap in the face to David Gonski and his team. As Ken Boston, the Gonski review panellist, said, Labor's arrangements corrupted needs based funding. Under this government, and unlike under those opposite, federal funding is based entirely on David Gonski's recommendations. Each student's background, level of disability and socioeconomic status are assessed to ensure funding is truly needs based and fair. That is a great boost for regional and rural students—students in your own electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker Hastie.
This budget makes the right choices to ensure a fair and responsible path back to a balanced budget. The underlying cash balance will improve from a forecast deficit of $29.4 billion in 2017-18 to a projected surplus of $7.4 billion in 2020-21. In simple terms, this means hardworking Australians and businesses will pay less tax in the future to pay down Labor's debt. In addition to Australia's economic growth being in its 26th year, the budget is projected to be back in surplus in 2020-21, and net debt is projected to fall to 8.5 per cent of GDP over the next decade. In addition to guaranteeing essential services that Australians rely on, like Medicare and the PBS, this budget will grow the economy, and the south-west will play its role in this. It is one of the engine rooms of the economy in Western Australia and, more broadly, Australia.
After a lot of very strenuous lobbying, the Bunbury Outer Ring Road completion is now one step closer, because I was able to secure $10 million towards this project. As members of the chamber may well recall, the project will link the key transport and export opportunities throughout the south-west, linking the Bunbury port and the new Busselton-Margaret River airport upgrade. It will also improve road safety in the south-west and reduce freight and passenger congestion in the region. It is a major issue, when you consider the amount of events and functions that are held throughout the south-west. The Busselton-Margaret River region is known as the events capital outside of Perth. I think I read in the newspapers that over the Easter weekend something like 100,000 vehicles travelled through to the south-west from Perth. The Bunbury Outer Ring Road is a key part of that, but more critically for the freight component.
At the start of the year the contracts had been signed for the Busselton-Margaret River Regional Airport upgrade, and for this I secured $9.78 million. This is an absolutely transformative project for the south-west. The Busselton-Margaret River Regional Airport upgrade will, by next year, see international and domestic flights directly into that region. The freight opportunities that will go with that are significant. Members of the House may not know that we produce some world-quality produce—whether it is beef, lamb or the wonderful wine—in my part of the world. You will see the truffles from Manjimup coming out through the Busselton regional airport as well. From a very self-interested perspective, our dairy products are also world class, as is that fabulous fresh water crayfish, the marron. For those of you who have not tried it, I am hoping that through the Busselton-Margaret River airport those sorts of wonderful products will be sent to the east coast. If it is packed today, I hope it is on your shelves and in your restaurants tonight in this part of the world. We have some fine wines and breweries as well in our part of the world. Opening all of this up to international and domestic tourists is a massive step to further putting the region on the doorstep of the world.
We know that Margaret River is basically an internationally brand. The amount of people who will want to come directly into this region will be significant. We have some amazing events, from the Margaret River Pro to the Busselton Jetty Swim. There are one-off triathlons. There is one event after another. I am sure that from the gourmet escape all the way through we will see people from around the world flying directly in. I am very proud to have been part of that.
Housing affordability has been an issue for many people, from those trying to downsize to those trying to buy their first home. This has been the case for several years. As the Treasurer said on budget night, by adopting a comprehensive approach to affordable housing, we actually can make a difference. Through the tax advantages of superannuation, the government's First Home Super Saver Scheme will assist people trying to get into the market for the first time. People will be able to make voluntary contributions of up to $15,000 annually and $30,000 in total to their super to purchase their first property. These contributions will be taxed at a reduced rate of 15 per cent, with withdrawals for the deposits taxed at a greatly reduced tax rate of less than 30 per cent of their income tax rate. In other words, if someone is paying less than 30 per cent tax then they will not pay tax on their withdrawal, or their deposit, from their super account. That is great news for first home buyers.
As we all know, small business is at the heart of this year's budget. I am really proud of that. We are continuing to focus on those fantastic I think 3.6 million small businesses that employ nearly half of Australia. We see them throughout rural and regional Australia. They do an amazing job in our small communities.
Of course, in addition to the tax cuts for the sector, the government is continuing the instant asset write-off for small businesses with a turnover of up to $10 million. It is a fantastic opportunity for small- to medium-sized businesses. I look at some of the major transport companies that cart cattle and freight throughout the regions. The tax cut is something they are so pleased to have. The instant asset write-off is used repeatedly. That is exactly what we wanted. We wanted to give confidence to small business and get them to the point where there are able to employ more people. I have repeatedly said that it is frequently small business that gives Australians their first jobs and it is frequently a small business that gives us our last job. That is beside all the basic services that they provide. In my community small businesses support our local sporting clubs and our community service organisations. Often they are the people in the fire brigade and St John Ambulance. They make a huge contribution.
We are also offering incentive payments to the states and territories to help cut red tape, particularly for small business. It is the bane of their life. Generally it is, 'We want the government to get out of our way and we want the red tape gone.' This is just another example of how the government is delivering sound economic management and is assisting over 12,600 small businesses in my electorate of Forrest. I have built and still have a business. These measures may seem simple to some, but they are massive to every small business, where every cent counts. Every cent counts in a small business.
As I have said, one of the greatest challenges is facing dairy farmers in the south-west of Western Australia. For the first time ever in Australia's history we have seen some of my dairy farmers not given a contract with a milk processor. This has caused incredible heartache. It has also caused great uncertainty in the region. Those small business dairy farmers absolutely love their land and their cows. For instance, like many of our neighbours, our business has over 40 years of amazing genetic depth in our herds. It takes an extraordinary amount of time to build a quality herd and a quality dairy business. It requires investment besides the blood, sweat and tears.
I want to finish this speech by acknowledging the dairy farmers that we lost in that way: Dale Hanks, Graham Manning, Tony Ferraro and their families. We have another group now who may not have their contracts renewed. This wonderful industry has underpinned much of the economic stability of the south-west in the majority of its history. I see the appalling loss of these businesses and the effect on these families. One of the toughest things I have had to deal with as a member of parliament is seeing the milk of my neighbour Graham Manning no longer being required. He was producing in the top five per cent of milk quality in this country for 14 years. I see the loss of the workers from his property and the fact that he is no longer spending money in my local small businesses.
Measures in this budget are so important for all of us, but I want to thank those families and those men and women for their extended service to what has been an outstanding industry. I commend them for their work and I thank them for it. Graham and Jane Manning were given a ceremonial milk bottle at our dairy innovation awards dinner. They went through the history of this family. They were probably the first dairy farmers in Western Australia. They actually milked cows at the edge of Mounts Bay Road in Perth underneath Jacob's Ladder before they moved down to the south-west.
In losing Graham and Jane Manning and the other farmers, we have not just lost those businesses and those farmers. This was the fifth generation of dairy farmers in the Manning family. This was the last way he and his family would have chosen for him to exit the industry. I do thank him and I thank all of my fellow dairy farmers.
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (18:15): I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-18 tonight. Obviously I will raise concerns relating to the Turnbull government's budget for 2017. In overview, this budget has failed to support industries in transition and has failed to invest in the outer suburbs of Australia's major cities, in particular the south-eastern region of Melbourne and my electorate of Holt.
In a broader sense though, I wanted to talk about the failure of governments, both state and federal governments, to deal with the issue of what I call 'disruptive technology'; the havoc that it wreaks on good people who have made investments in good faith, who then have those investments taken away from them by these disruptive technologies that are not regulated in the same way; the impact it has had on industries, and on one particular industry that I am going to mention; the fact that governments of all persuasions are allowing these disruptive technologies to come in without appropriate regulation and oversight; and what the long-term consequences of that are going to be for our community and our society.
The primary example I want to talk about tonight is the ongoing plight of Australia's taxi and hire car industries. The taxi and hire car industries throughout the world have been going through a global transition that has been brought about by the digital revolution, and by the new economy. However, rather than receiving the needed support that happens when new industries come in through transition, the federal government, the Turnbull government, and, unfortunately, state governments have completely neglected the industry and the ongoing suffering that is being experienced in dealing with this transition.
Many of my constituents and others would have read about the term 'global disruption' to various industries. One of the first prime examples of this has been the global disruption to the taxi and hire car industries. This occurred due to changes in the way people can order a taxi and/or other transportation services, such as Uber. Governments around the world have responded in different ways to technologies and new industries like Uber. For example, Denmark, France, Bulgaria and Finland have all stood up and banned Uber, while Uber has in the main been allowed to exist in the USA and is trying to spread into 82 other countries around the world. It is now interesting that, because of some of the concerns about Uber, there is some unionisation occurring of the Uber workforce in the United States.
In Victoria, the previous Baillieu and Napthine Liberal Victorian government between 2010 and 2014 failed to take any action to address the disruption of this industry when it first came in. What happened was they allowed Uber to exist in Victoria, effectively unregulated. As a result, taxi licence values dropped by half, from about $500,000 on average to about $250,000 during the four years of the previous Liberal state government. During that period, not one cent of financial assistance was paid.
In light of this legislative mess, the Andrews Labor government brought in reforms to attempt to compensate those who were affected; however, I would say they are not ideal. They provided $494 million to those affected. Through this package, perpetual metropolitan licence holders will receive $100,000 for their first licence and $50,000 per licence for up to three more, while additional financial support can be provided under the hardship funding. It sounds good, but let us see what the ramifications of that are. Rather than supporting the need to provide much-needed financial support to this industry, the Liberal opposition in Victoria is blocking the bill in parliament—that compensation bill. Because the bill is now stuck in parliament—it is being debated in committee—it is denying families vital funds that they need now. In addition, if we look at the Turnbull government, it is still planning to tax the payments the Andrews government will be making to those taxi cab and hire car owners and drivers that are in need.
Despite this taxi and hire car assistance package being provided, the families involved in this industry are under a great deal of stress. The value of their licences is now zero, and their income has been radically reduced. In many cases the value of their taxi or hire car plate was superannuation for these families. That was their investment. As a result of the establishment of Uber, these families have nothing. They have no superannuation, just a substantial debt.
Over the last two years our office has been working closely with Victorian Taxi & Hire Car Families. We have been assisting roughly 3,000 families who individually own or operate taxis or hire cars. To those who do not know each of these 3,000 families are suffering to varying degrees as a result of very comprehensive changes to the taxi and hire car industry. For example, in one case a family bought a taxi licence in 2011 for $513,000. In Victoria this taxi licence is now worth nothing. The family is clearly now in severe financial hardship. The family still owes $350,430 on the taxi licence. It will receive only $100,000 of financial assistance from the state government. This means the family is left with a debt of $250,430 to deal with for the rest of their lives. This is but one example of how taxis and hire car families have been affected and of the financial hardship they are experiencing.
Let me talk about that in a more graphic way. Since August 2016 Victorian Taxi & Hire Car Families has compiled statistics from among their members. They have attribute to the hardship experienced by this transition, the death of three members due to ongoing stress, 11 families having had to sell their family homes, six families having gone through a divorce, five members having suffered a heart attack, four members suffering other severe health issues and four members now suffering from cancer. This situation could be mitigated if the state Labor government were to fully fund and provide additional financial support to those families that are struggling to cope at present. I call on the Turnbull government also to commit to not taxing the payments the Andrews Labor government is wishing to make as this financial assistance.
The Victorian taxi and hire car industry wants a long-term future, and it is vital that Australian governments consider assisting the taxi industry. There is a reason why I would do that Uber has failed to fulfil its tax obligations, infringed workers' rights and failed to provide insurance protection for customers injured in a crash in Australia in all cases. That does not apply to the taxi industry.
New operators providing transportation services should be treated like taxis and hire cars and not be allowed to get away with not paying tax and with disobeying Australian laws. Yet that is what is actually happening. The people involved in the taxi and hire car industry have done nothing wrong. They pay their taxes and provide an essential service to Australians. In contrast, the families involved in Victorian Taxi & Hire Car Families believe existing laws are not being enforced to properly regulate Uber. So there is a situation where there is a disruptive industry, a technology, a grouping and a major conglomerate worth $60 billion that comes into this country and does not abide by the law of the country. It does not pay tax. Yet it is rewarded by governments bending to its will by allowing this lack of regulation to occur. That sets a very undesirable precedent for other industries where that will occur. We are seeing the thin edge of the wedge. It will not be just taxi and hire car families; it will be other industries. This plan of deregulation and disruptive technology will not stop with taxis and hire cars. It will progress through all sorts of industries. We are seeing the canary in the coalmine. It is the taxi and hire car families that are having to pay the price at this point in time.
Victorian Taxi & Hire Car Families also wanted to remind the chamber that a taxi driver in Manchester, AJ Singh, decided to turn off his meter and offer free lifts to people who were caught up in the atrocity committed last week in Manchester. During the Bourke Street tragedy in Melbourne in January 2017, taxi driver Lou Bougias intervened and immediately went to the aid of multiple victims and provided direction to others who joined in to help. His actions became one of the most inspirational acts to emerge in the aftermath of this terrible tragedy. In contrast—and we know this because we have looked at it—during the Lindt cafe siege in Martin Place in December 2014, according to Ben Grubb in an article in The Sydney Morning Herald, Uber decided to charge passengers four times the usual rate under its surge pricing scheme. In times of need we see taxi drivers—the regulated industry—stepping in and showing compassion. I believe compassion should be extended to those in the taxi and hire car industry in their time of need.
According to Elizabeth Knight's article in The Sydney Morning Herald last week, one of Australia's wealthiest and most high-profile investors, Hamish Douglass, has called Uber 'a Ponzi scheme and one that will be broke in 10 years'. Thus, it might be a good idea for the Australian government and some of our state governments to question their ongoing support for Uber and look at whether it is leading to ongoing hardship for those in the taxi and hire car industry in Australia. They are seeing a regulated industry being wiped out for an industry that might not be around in the next five to 10 years.
I and my colleagues the member for Wills and the member for Batman have worked assiduously to ensure the taxi and hire car industry is supported. I would certainly urge the Turnbull government to intervene in some way to take some action to address the unfolding human tragedy that is occurring within an industry in transition in Australia. There are 3,000 families in the Victorian taxi and hire car industry group that need urgent financial assistance right now. I would also make that call to the Andrews Labor government. It needs to step in and provide additional financial support as soon as possible.
Rather than just talking about the taxi and high car industry, I would like to point out this budget's neglect of the outer suburbs like those in my region. I note that the Turnbull government has a plan for the new airport at Badgerys Creek in Sydney, but there is certainly no commensurate plan for the outer suburbs in Melbourne and, in particular, in the south-east of Melbourne in my electorate of Holt. In light of the decline of Australia's automotive manufacturing capability and the closure of Victoria's Hazelwood power station, it is vital that we set a new renewable energy manufacturing jobs plan for the south-east of Melbourne.
If you look at the scale of the contribution that the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne make, they generate 44 per cent of Victoria's manufactured product. That is according to the South East Melbourne Manufacturers Alliance, or SEMMA. Industry provides 17 per cent of south-east Melbourne's 549,000 jobs. There are more than 300 exporters located in this region. The question is: what support was provided in the budget for Australian manufacturing, especially as the automotive sector is winding down? One of the key priorities is to continue to invest in this manufacturing hub of the south-east of Melbourne so we can keep jobs in our local area.
Another important point that can be made is in respect of the lack of funding for road congestion in my electorate. This is a substantial issue. We deal with congestion on the Monash Freeway, the South Gippsland Highway, Clyde Road and Thompsons Road, to name just a few roads, and congestion, particularly on Thompsons Road, is a substantial issue for people in my constituency. The priority is to fully fund the completion of Thompsons Road in Cranbourne. During the 2016 campaign I was delighted that Labor committed to investing $85 million in funding for Thompsons Road, which would duplicate high-volume sections of Thompsons Road, making it six lanes wide, build a full grade separation at Western Port Highway intersection and upgrade the intersections with Frankston-Dandenong Road and Narre Warren-Cranbourne Road. The grade separation, if it is not funded, becomes a self-defeating enterprise. There are funds available, we know there are funds available, and we have certainly seen those funds committed by the Prime Minister to other states and territories. I would call upon the federal Turnbull government to make a commitment to fund this grade separation, in particular at the intersection of Thompsons Road and Western Port Highway. It is essential work that needs to be done. It should not just be left to the state government to fund this. The Turnbull government should be doing this. We made that commitment, and we would expect to see that matched by the Turnbull government.
I would like to finish where I started and remember those taxi families and hire car families. They continue to need our support. They are the canary in the coalmine: where goes the taxi and hire car industry, we will see other industries doing the same fairly soon.
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (18:30): It is an honour to have the opportunity once again to rise in this place and speak in relation to yet another budget. The government, like the ancient mariner, has had the 2014 budget around its neck like an albatross for the past three years. And it seems, from this budget, that is in no danger of abating. Yes, some of the so-called zombie measures are were scrapped, finally, like a lot of the cuts that were first instituted in the 2014 budget but never actually passed, but the ghost of that budget still lingers on because this year's budget really is built on the same set of values that that 2014 disastrous budget was established on. These are values like seeking to reduce services to the Australian community and like seeking to favour the top end of town at the expense of ordinary working people of ordinary middle-class households. Those were the values of the 2014 budget that saw the then Abbott government wanting to cut the indexation of the pension. Those values still hold true today as the Turnbull government seeks to find ways to cut school funding and to cut funding to higher education.
The centrepiece of this Turnbull budget is a $65 billion tax cut for corporations, including the big banks. And that is often justified on the basis of the pretty discredited idea of trickle-down economics. People say: 'We need to cut corporate taxes so that companies get can get more money in. Then they'll take that money and spend it on creating jobs and increasing wages for working people.' That is the argument often put for the $65 billion tax cut for corporations, including the big banks. But it is just not borne out on the evidence.
We have actually got a great control group in the form of the United States of America. They cut their corporate taxes in the 1980s under then President Reagan, and of course you did not see a wonderful jobs utopia, where inequality shrank, middle-class jobs became more well-paid and there were more jobs for everyone. In fact, it was quite the reverse. Middle-class families in the US have had living standards eroded for a very long time. It is just not the case to say that, as soon as you start to improve a company's earnings, the money that is earned is reinvested into making the business bigger and better and creating new jobs.
If you want another example of that, there is a much more recent one, and that is what is happening in this country. Earnings for corporate Australia are up. In fact, they are up 18 per cent. At the same time we have seen a trend since the late 1970s and early 1980s where the profit share of national income has been increasing and, correspondingly, the wages share has been dropping. If the conservative argument held true that having companies make more money immediately and necessarily means more jobs and better pay, you would think that right now—when earnings are up and the profit share of national income has been increasing and is very high—we would be seeing that happening in Australia, but we are not. To the contrary, it is just not the case that there is some sort of trickling down effect meaning wages are increasing.
Wages growth is the slowest and lowest it has been since this country started keeping the wage price index in 1997. We are at a record low period of wages growth since 1997. That is 20 years, a very long time. I don't about you, but in 1997 I was watching a bit of Buffy. I was on college, playing a bit of touch footy, playing in the orchestra and going to class. A lot has changed since then. It is a long period of time over which these stats have been kept, and we are seeing wages growth at this really incredibly slow rate right now, despite the strength of our corporate sector.
Similarly, we are not seeing a massive reinvestment by the corporate sector of their very strong earnings into capital deepening, into making their companies better. We know this because private capital expenditure has been tumbling. If you look at private capital expenditure, it has actually been falling through the floor—decreasing in the order of four per cent per quarter over the last few. We are not seeing this incredible reinvestment and reinvigoration of Australian corporations, but what we are seeing is really an investment strike. We are seeing record high payments to shareholders in the form of dividends, so it seems that what you get when companies do better financially is that more of that money goes into the pockets of shareholders. It does not necessarily go into the pockets of workers or into capital deepening for that company, into growth for the company.
Why is that? It is not as though corporate Australia is in some way ill willed or does not want to invest in capital, of course. There are perverse incentives that incentivise the payment of dividends in order to keep share prices up. This is a real problem, and it is something that needs to be considered, but that is not in and of itself enough of a reason to say, 'Actually, what we should do is just take it as a leap of faith to say that, if we cut corporate taxes, that will necessarily mean more jobs or better pay,' because that is just not the experience. That is not the experience in the US. The analogous situation, where companies have been doing better here in Australia, has not led to more jobs and better pay. Yes, we have some pleasing news on the unemployment front in this country, particularly since the highs that we had just after the 2014 budget actually. Remember that we had unemployment at the time that was at higher rates than it had been even in the depth of the global financial crisis a few years earlier.
Unemployment is not as high in 2017 as it was in 2014 after the first coalition government budget smashed this nation's confidence, but it remains high. What is probably more insidious—more difficult to see and to notice—is the record rates of underemployment that workers in this country are facing. It is record rates of underemployment. It is declines in hours worked. This is a new problem that we are facing right now—the abundance of labour and the lack of availability of jobs. People on worksites talk to me about automation. Whether you are a wharfie whose job started disappearing when they got those giant robots that move around the port, whether you used to work on a mine site as a truck driver and the trucks are now fully automated or whether you are looking at the possibility of losing your job to a self-driving train, this is happening across the world. It is not something that is by any means confined to Australia, but it means that we need to have a real conversation about what can be done to ensure that people are not left powerless and jobless as a consequence.
This blunt instrument of cutting corporate taxes to make capital more profitable is not good enough. It is not an answer to the problems that working people are facing. We need answers that go to making wages better, to finding ways to create more jobs and to making sure that there are not these weird skews where you have some people working 80 hours a week while others cannot get more than 30 hours. Those are the real issues that a government with vision and leadership needs to come to grips with, but instead all we have seen in this budget is a centrepiece of $65 billion in corporate tax cuts and, I think probably just as terribly and just as disappointingly, the cuts to education. I say that because if we want to be able to deal with the fact that the labour market is changing, that jobs are changing and that the skills that we need are changing that means investing in our people. It means creating a workforce of the future that will have the skills that are needed for the jobs of the future, and I am not just talking about content knowledge.
There will be all sorts of skills, attributes and traits that are needed in order to navigate the future. There are big challenges coming. There is one that we are facing right now that, frankly, we are not doing a very good job of facing, and that is climate change. Climate change is posing a very big challenge to our entire world. To respond to that, it is going to take not only the content knowledge of science but also the skills that we need to negotiate, to listen to each other and to work together to solve problems and to not only try to stop the increase in the temperature but also deal with the effects that are already being caused by the change that has already happened. To mitigate the effects of climate change we are going to have to have a population that has the skills that are needed to be able to work together to solve really big, thorny problems.
We are also going to need to do something right now about inequality, because a less-equal world is a more conflict-ridden world. It is hard enough as it is. We are already facing conflict across the world as it is. If we keep having situations develop where we allow the exacerbation of inequality that is going to make things much harder than they otherwise would be. Education is important for that, too. It is not just about making sure that the kids of today and the kids of tomorrow get the education they need to be able to get a good job or to live in a society. It is also about making sure that they get the education they need not just for themselves but to help make a society that is more peaceful and more equal, where people do get a fair go, where in fact the opportunity you get is not something that comes from the privilege with which you were born, but from how hard you work and how much you make the most of the natural talents and abilities you have.
To me, cutting education funding in these times right now, particularly when the government's intention is to worsen the deficit to the tune of $65 billion with the corporate tax cuts, is not just unfair—it is obviously unfair—but is incredibly reckless and damaging to the nation's future. If we do not fund schools properly we are going to have a range of problems. There are the mundane problems you get when you have only some good schools and everybody gets on the road at peak-hour and goes to those schools and you get all this unnecessary traffic congestion because people do not want to go to their local schools. But there are the bigger problems that come with the inequality that comes from there being great schools and terrible schools. I went to Cairns State High and to Edge Hill State School, two great public schools up north. I loved those schools and learned incredible amounts of amazing things there and I am so proud to have been to those schools. But even I—someone who was at school 30 years ago—understand the difference in opportunity that I had compared with the opportunities kids who went to wealthier schools in capital cities had.
That is more pronounced today than it was when I was a student. I want to start to reverse those trends, so we have to fund their education properly. The $22 billion in cuts to school funding must not be accepted. Labor is absolutely right to be fighting the $22 billion in cuts this government is making. They went to the 2014 budget saying, 'We are going to cut $30 billion from schools.' This year they went to the 2017 budget and said, 'No, no. It is all right. We are not going to cut $30 billion; we are going to cut $22 billion.' And we are supposed to be grateful for that—our kids are supposed to be grateful for that? The kids in my electorate, whether they are living in Cannon Hill, Annerley or Holland Park West are meant to be grateful for that? Of course they are not. This country needs a well-educated future workforce and a well-educated future citizenry. That is what we need, and investing in education is the way to do that.
It is the same with the kindy cuts. I thought that this government would go to the 2017 budget and say, 'We have finally fixed universal access kindy funding. We have finally got to the point where we are not going to give one or two year extensions. We are going to do a five-year commitment so that kindies can have certainty moving forward.' But they did not. Imagine my shock. I was ready to write to my kindies and say, 'Well done, everyone. You have convinced the government to do the five-year funding.' But instead of running out this year it is going to run out next year. The government says that they wanted more time to negotiate. What we know is that the additional education opportunities that kids get from kindie are incredibly important for their future prospects. It is time the government gave a long-term commitment to the universal access funding and stopped leaving these kindergartens with the uncertainty that they are facing as a consequence of the funding decisions the government has made.
Probably closest to my heart at the moment, because of my portfolio as the shadow assistant minister for universities, is the cuts to universities. This government has a budget in which they want to cut university funding by almost $4 billion over four years. At the same time they want to put up student fees—so, increase the fees and drop the public funding. Then they want to make it harder for people on low incomes to be able to get by and save, by dropping the threshold at which you start to make a contribution to higher education. The reason we have an income contingent loan in this country is that there is a view that if you never get to a reasonably high income as a consequence of university fees then you never get to a point where you start to make that contribution. But once you do, you pay more in income tax and you pay a contribution to the cost of higher education. It is fair because there is a private benefit from higher education and there is a bigger public benefit from higher education. We all benefit if there are doctors, if there are lawyers, if there are trained veterinarians and if there are architects. I think that these cuts and these fee hikes, requiring students to pay more for less, are deeply reckless, particularly at a time such as we are facing right now when there are global challenges for which we will need an educated population.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hastie ): I thank the member for her remarks and her confession of a youth misspent watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer!
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (18:45): I rise in this place today to speak about the impact of this government's budget on my electorate of Herbert. The reality is that if I were just to speak today about what the Turnbull government has delivered for Townsville and North Queensland in the 2017 budget I would have very little or nothing to say, because this government has delivered absolutely nothing to Townsville and absolutely nothing to North Queensland. Instead, I will enlighten the government on everything that they could have delivered and everything they did not deliver in this year's federal budget.
Firstly, the two big-ticket items that were not in the budget, the two things for which Townsville has been screaming for some time now, the two infrastructure projects that need urgent acknowledgement and funding allocation are water security and energy infrastructure. The Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, has been meeting with local business leaders since before the last election and as recently as April to discuss how to get the Townsville economy and community back on track. In less than a month after his visit in April, the Leader of the Opposition came back to Townsville to announce $200 million for the building of a hydropower station and $100 million for water security infrastructure. These announcements were not rocket science. The lack of these significant and fundamental infrastructure projects is having a significant negative impact and is holding Townsville back. This is very obvious to those of us who live in the north, but if you see the world from the perspective of wealth, as does our Prime Minister—who is used to having a solid silver spoon in his mouth—I guess it does not really matter.
I was flabbergasted that the Turnbull government has committed nothing to water and energy security infrastructure in the budget for the north. The Turnbull government tries hard to copy a great deal of Labor's policy and commitments. This was clearly evident in regard to the Townsville stadium announcement. In October 2015, Labor committed $100 million towards the Townsville stadium, and more than eight months later—in fact, on the day before prepolling opened—the Prime Minister was dragged kicking and screaming to follow suit. Unfortunately, it looks like Labor will lead the way again, and I will continue to be a loud, persistent and strong voice in Canberra for my electorate of Herbert. I live in hope that someone in the government will listen and act. It would have been great if the Turnbull government had done what governments are supposed to do: deliver vital infrastructure for struggling communities. But it seems that Townsville's cries are falling on deaf ears. The Turnbull government's ignorance is outstanding. Townsville should not have to fight this hard to have access to water, and businesses should not have to shut their doors before the Turnbull government does something about addressing our growing energy crisis. But, due to the sheer pigheadedness of this government, I will take up the fight for Townsville and I will not stop until either this government is kicked out and a Shorten Labor government, which will deliver water and energy infrastructure, is voted in or the Turnbull government matches Labor's commitments.
Here we go again, it seems. The most obvious solution sits in our backyard, and even though the Turnbull government cannot seem to see it you can see the catchment area for this resource from space. Of course, I am talking about the Burdekin Falls Dam, a 'two birds with one stone' solution. The Burdekin Falls Dam is 130 kilometres west of Townsville. This dam is five times the size of Sydney Harbour, and the catchment area is bigger than England. But accessing this water resource is expensive. It is currently costing the Townsville City Council tens of thousands of dollars per day to pump 130 megalitres of water from the Haughton pipeline to the dam, which only delivers 90 megalitres due to evaporation. Currently, the Haughton pipeline does not directly feed to the Ross River Dam; it feeds into the Haughton channel, where water has to travel a further 46 kilometres to reach the Ross River Dam, which was built as a flood mitigation strategy.
What Townsville needs is a gravity-fed pipeline directly from the Burdekin Falls Dam, the raising of the dam wall and the construction of a hydro power station, as was the original vision. The plans were drafted in the eighties and the land purchased by a forward-thinking Hawke Labor government. It was the Howard government that stopped funding to deliver the full vision and construction of this vital infrastructure. The coalition government now have an opportunity to fix what they have ruined for the north, but they had better be warned: if you do not match Labor's $300 million commitment then you will be kicked out at the next election by the people living in the north that you have ignored.
Of course, this government could have addressed our growing ice epidemic. The electorate of Herbert has a substantial ice problem, which has contributed significantly to a high youth crime rate in the city of Townsville. Our closest youth drug rehabilitation and detox centre is in Brisbane, and this facility is mostly at capacity, which then leaves facilities in Melbourne available for our youth. That is simply too far for families and young people to travel. Once again, it would have been so easy for this government to match Labor's $5 million commitment to fund the Salvation Army to include a youth drug rehabilitation and detox centre in their new facility in Townsville, but, once again, the Turnbull government just did not think it was important enough.
This budget has pointed out the absolute hypocrisy of the Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, and his regional jobs plan, because nowhere in this budget has funding been allocated for government departments and services to be decentralised. It appears that the Deputy Prime Minister is interested only in his electorate and not all regional areas when it comes to his decentralisation plan. I have spoken to many organisations in North Queensland that have now seen the Deputy Prime Minister for what he really is. No funding in the budget has been not only a kick in the guts but a stab in the back, with salt rubbed into the wound. North Queenslanders will not forget this. It is not like it would have been hard for the Deputy Prime Minister to make a start regarding regional services. The government could have reinstated the 200 jobs cut from the Australian Taxation Office, the 19 jobs cut from the CSIRO and the four jobs cut from the office of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. That would have been a great start, but they could not even do that.
Now our community has heard whispers of even further uncertainty. It appears that the Turnbull government is considering closing the Bureau of Meteorology in Townsville. How quickly the Prime Minister has forgotten his trip to Proserpine, where he saw firsthand the devastation in the aftermath of Cyclone Debbie. I would have thought the member for Dawson would also understand the critical reasons for the Bureau of Meteorology to remain in Townsville, as his electorate was devastated by Cyclone Debbie. For the member for Dawson's sake, I will outline the great work and importance of the Bureau of Meteorology office in Townsville. It is because of their on-the-ground work and capacity to quickly provide information to local council disaster recovery management teams, state government, Defence and, of course, the community that there were no lives lost. Governments, businesses, organisations and communities were able to quickly prepare and be ready, and for that we can thank the initial on-the-ground work by the BOM staff, who were able to provide life-saving information as quickly as humanly possible. North Queensland is the heartland of tropical cyclones, and having the Bureau of Meteorology's office located in Townsville, which can act as a central point in North Queensland, is not negotiable; it is vital. No assurances have been given, and these whispers are getting louder.
Then, of course, we have the $22 billion cut to education. Education is the cornerstone of the future development of this nation. Education is the only way out of poverty and disadvantage for people wanting to contribute and achieve a good life. Our principals, schools, teachers and parents desperately need Labor's needs based funding, but sadly the Turnbull government would rather give a $65.4 billion tax cut to big business. Parents, principals and teachers know schools will be worse off because of the Liberals' $22 billion cut to education, which is the equivalent of cutting $2.4 million from every school in Australia over the next decade, or sacking 22,000 great teachers.
It will not be the schools in Wentworth, inner Sydney or Melbourne that miss out. No, it will be the schools in regional, rural and remote Queensland that will be left out. Of course, they are the schools that need funding the most. There is enough pressure on our schools as it is without this government cutting over $22 billion. Principals are already struggling to make ends meet. For example, the principal of the Aitkenvale State School is even doing a lot of the hard work and irrigation upgrades himself on weekends, pinching every penny he can to invest back in his teachers and students. Education should be bipartisan. This should not be an argument that we are having. But, sadly, it is. I cannot support $22 billion cuts to education, and I will not support anything other than Labor's full rollout of needs based funding.
Then we have the cuts to health. Australia used to be a place where we valued our health system. Everyone had a fair go when it came to access to quality healthcare services. But it is clear that the Turnbull government is hell-bent on destroying our healthcare system. This budget confirmed what the Australian public already knew: you cannot trust the coalition with health. The Turnbull government's budget locks in $2.2 billion cuts to GP, specialist and allied health services. This is further proof that the Prime Minister has simply paid lip service to caring about health. He has kept these cuts in place for three years.
Just today reports have come to light that the Turnbull government intends to abolish the private health insurance rebate. Consumers will be charged more for extras and states will be forced to find more money for public hospitals under radical funding changes being considered by top government officials. Documents reveal that the nation's most senior health bureaucrats are part of a secret task force developing a proposal for a Commonwealth hospital benefit, a new funding formula for public and private hospitals that would have widespread ramifications for patients and the medical industry.
I currently have my mother-in-law dying of cancer in the palliative care ward in the Townsville hospital. I can tell you that they need every cent they can get because that hospital has had to take that palliative care centre and turn it into an overflow unit for medical and surgical procedures—and that is simply unacceptable.
Before the Turnbull government tries to sweep this under the rug, tender documents show that the Department of Health has paid $55,000 to establish a task force on hospital funding. The task force have met three times, as recently as March 2017. This government is just hell-bent on destroying our public health system. We saw the task force created by the coalition government to privatise Medicare, and now we are seeing a new task force to destroy public hospitals. It is obvious when it comes to public health and public education that you just cannot trust the Turnbull government.
The disgraceful lifting of the GP index freeze is hardly worth noting. I recently met with a healthcare reference group that I have formed in my electorate of Herbert, made up of local medical leaders, including GPs, from across Townsville. I asked them openly and honestly about the Turnbull government's lifting of the GP index freeze. The replies were very disheartening, indeed. GPs told me that lifting the GP freeze gives patients a maximum of 12c for the next two years and then they will get $2.
Sadly for the people of Townsville and North Queensland I am sorry to say to say that the Turnbull budget does very little to nothing for us. This is a shameful budget. It is not only that there is nothing delivered north of Brisbane; we were not even afforded a mention in the budget speech. The Turnbull government has just ignored Townsville and the north. Had it delivered any of the things that I mentioned, I would have welcomed the announcement. But instead of rejoicing in North Queensland we have a huge fight on our hands, and I will be a loud and strong advocate in this place.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended fro m 18:59 to 19 : 44
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): It being after 7.30 pm, the debate is interrupted. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
Federat ion Chamber adjourned at 19:44
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Centrelink payments
(Question No. 666)
Mr Georganas asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 7 February 2017:
(1) From 1 January 2016 to 1 January 2017, how many Centrelink customers were sent letters informing them that they had been overpaid and would need to repay this debt, only to have this advice subsequently rescinded when queried. (2) Does this number represent a growth compared to the previous twelve months. (3) Has there been a change in the way that Centrelink investigates and informs customers of over-payments; if so, will he outline the change.
Mr Tudge: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) From 1 January 2016 to 1 January 2017, how many Centrelink customers were sent letters informing them that they had been overpaid and would need to repay this debt, only to have this advice subsequently rescinded when queried?
For the period 1 January 2016 to 1 January 2017, approximately 1.4 million people were issued a social welfare debt notice. Of these, approximately 44,000 people had social welfare debts which were subsequently recalculated to zero following a reassessment or review of the debt. As part of the standard process, debts are determined based on information available from the recipient and, where available, other trusted sources. Therefore, it is important that people respond to requests from the Department of Human Services (the Department) to update the information about their circumstances. Even after a debt is identified, people are able to request a reassessment or review of the debt and provide further information to inform that process. New information or evidence is regularly provided as part of this process.
(2) Does this number represent a growth compared to the previous twelve months?
No. There has been a decrease in the number of people who have had their social welfare debt recalculated to zero in the period 1 January 2016 to 1 January 2017 compared to the same period in 2015-16 as illustrated in the following table.
Information for All Social Welfare Debts
|
2015 |
2016 |
Total number of people with a social welfare debt |
1,208,911 |
1,380,971 |
Number of people with a debt recalculated to zero |
52,885 |
44,066 |
(3) Has there been a change in the way that Centrelink investigates and informs customers of over-payments; if so, will he outline the change.
Social welfare debts are assessed and calculated in accordance with the relevant legislation and policy parameters.
As part of the 2015-16 Strengthening the Integrity of Welfare Payments budget measure, an online tool was introduced on 1 July 2016 to assist with one type of compliance activity. This activity relates to checking differences between the employment income declared to the Department by the recipient compared to employment income information provided by the Australian Taxation Office. This tool allows people to complete this type of compliance activity online. The new online compliance system automates part of the compliance process, and encourages people to take part in correcting their records. People can now go online at a time convenient to them to check and, if necessary, amend their information.
The online tool does not change the way income is assessed or debts are calculated and it does not automate debt recovery.
For all social welfare debts, regardless of how they are detected, people are advised of the debt in writing. This standard process has not changed. For people using the online tool in relation to a particular compliance activity referred to above, in addition to receiving advice of the debt in writing, advice is also provided online either notifying them of the outcome of the assessment or requesting them to contact the Department.
Infrastructure
(Question No. 714)
Mr Albanese asked the Minister for Health in writing, on 27 March 2017:
(1) What infrastructure projects were fully or partially funded by the department betweenDecember 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:
The information provided at Attachment A has been provided from the best available aggregated source, at the most detailed level available, noting that:
information provided on Aged Care capital grants is subject to the privacy provisions of the Aged Care Act 1997 and therefore only publicly available information has been provided;
details requested have been matched as closely as possible to searchable terms within the aggregated source;
while this response captures the vast majority of programs and projects funded during the request period, my Department acknowledges that the list is not complete, particularly in relation to minor infrastructure projects in the earlier period which were managed through paper based systems; and
to collate a more detailed response to the requested information would constitute an unreasonable diversion of resources from other departmental operations.
A copy of Attachment A may be obtained from the Table Office.