The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Resignation
The SPEAKER (10:01): I inform the House that on 11 May 2018 I received a letter from Rebekha Carina Che Sharkie resigning her seat as the member for the electoral division of Mayo. Consideration is being given to the possible dates for this by-election and the other four by-elections, and I will inform the House in due course of the dates which I have fixed for the by-elections.
COMMITTEES
Petitions Committee
Report
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (10:01): Today I present the 23rd report of the Petitions Committee for the 45th Parliament, together with 31 petitions and 57 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented.
I'd like to draw to the attention of the House a correction to the signature count for a petition tabled by the member for Watson on 27 March 2018. The petition, lodged by Sister Susan Connelly, concerned the maritime boundary between Australia and Timor-Leste. The correct number of signatures obtained for the paper petition is 16,522 signatures. This petition was presented alongside an e-petition in identical terms with 369 signatures. We regret that this administrative error occurred and convey our sincere apologies to both Sister Connelly and the member for Watson. On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I congratulate Sister Connelly for her efforts in petitioning the House on a cause dear to her and to the thousands of people who signed her petition.
Indeed, these petitions, along with the petitions I present to the House today, assure us of the continuing relevance and importance of the petitioning process in the House of Representatives. The group of petitions I present today includes a number of e-petitions that have each obtained thousands of signatures. One of these is an e-petition requesting the removal of GST from women's sanitary products, which obtained 104,185 signatures. The committee has now certified over 300 electronic petitions and over 230 paper petitions during the 45th Parliament. On behalf of the committee, I thank the individuals who petitioned the House on issues that matter to them, and the individuals who took the time to sign those petitions.
Thank you. The committee looks forward to presenting its report into e-petitioning in the coming weeks and continuing to update the House on the work of the Petitions Committee.
PETITIONS
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (10:03): I present thirty one petitions:
River Heads Queensland
TO THE HONOURABLE THE SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Draws to the attention of the House: Owner of site at River Heads Queensland, adjacent to the Great Sandy Marine Park Ramsar wetlands has applied to develop a retirement village including a private sewerage treatment plant. Matters of national environmental significance relevant controlling provisions for EPBC Referral 2013/7038 have not been fully addressed in the Draft Public Environment Report. Wetlands of International Importance - Downstream effects of treated sewage effluent pose major environmental risks; Stormwater plan ignores the High Environmental- Values of the site with alterations to natural creek paths, and Acid sulfate soils report not provided. Listed Threatened Species - Impact on Water Mouse, lllidge's Butterfly, Green Turtle and Dugong feeding grounds ignored plus major fish breeding habitat 100 metre minimum buffer ignored. Listed Migratory Species - Mangrove Point South (Turtle Cove) Claypan is a recognised Critical King Tide Roost for migratory birds with counts of critically endangered Far Eastern Curlew exceeding the one per cent Ramsar criteria. Planned 50 metre buffer ignores recommended EPBC bird buffers of 165 - 255 metres.
We therefore ask the House to: Fund acquisition of freehold Lot 996 SP129069 and Lot 124 SP156870 by the Crown, for the long term protection of Great Sandy Strait wetlands and Great Barrier Reef plus honour international agreements to which Australia is signatory namely Ramsar, JAMBA, CAMBA, ROKAMBA and EAAFP.
from 659 citizens (Petition No. PN0342)
Rohingya
TO THE HONOURABLE THE SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: the crisis of the Rohingya refugees from Myanmar. The Rohingya people, a minority ethnic group in Myanmar, have been crossing the border to Bangladesh after a military crackdown by the Myanmar government in late August 1917. The military was responsible for raping, killing, and setting fire to the houses of the Rohingya people and forcing them to leave their homes. This incident was clear and well documented by the UN, and numerous human rights groups have described the actions as ethnic cleansing and genocide. Over 600,000 Rohingya have already fled to Bangladesh as refugees after the recent violence. More than 27,000 children were identified as orphans. As Australians we are horrified at the atrocities currently taking place in the Rakhin state of Myanmar and are concerned with the lack of adequate response by our leadership.
We therefore ask the House to: 1. Cease support of any non-humanitarian aid to Myanmar. 2. Increase humanitarian aid to the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. 3. Condemn the Myanmar leadership and pressure them to put an end to the atrocities. 4. Communicate to the Myanmar leader, Aung San Suki, and demand she take back the Rohingya refugees and create for them a safe-zone under UN supervision, and provide them rights equal to that of other Myanmar citizens.
from 72 citizens (Petition No. PN0344)
Asylum Seekers
TO THE HONOURABLE THE SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: The closing of the Lombrum detention centre on the 31st October has left people seeking asylum on Manus Island in a humanitarian crisis. The lack of access to clean water, sanitation, medicine and necessary services not only violates basic human rights but has created a critical public health situation that could have wide impacts for regional population health. People seeking asylum on Manus fear for their safety in the PNG community, a feeling supported by a Human Rights Watch Report which found escalating violence and tension, including attacks and robberies on the men, and a lack of adequate responses by authorities. There has been at least three serious attacks since June 2017, with the victims needing medical care in Port Moresby or Australia. The regional representative for the UNHCR has officially stated that the accommodation and services for refugees and asylum seekers on Manus Island are profoundly inadequate. There is an urgent need for a safe and humane response to the escalating conditions faced by people seeking asylum on Manus Island.
We therefore ask the House to: Call on the Minister of Immigration and Border Protection to arrange for the evacuation of all people seeking asylum on Manus Island and relocate them to Australia while permanent resettlement arrangements are being made.
from 113 citizens (Petition No. PN0346)
River Heads Queensland
Owner of site at River Heads Queensland, adjacent to the Great Sandy Marine Park Ramsar wetlands has applied to develop a retirement village including a private sewerage treatment plant. Matters of national environmental significance relevant controlling provisions for EPBC Referral 2013/7038 have not been fully addressed in the Draft Public Environment Report. Wetlands of International Importance - Downstream effects of treated sewage effluent pose major environmental risks; Stormwater plan ignores the High Environmental Values of the site with alterations to natural creek paths and Acid sulfate soils report not provided. Listed Threatened Species - Impact on Water Mouse, Illidge's Butterfly, Green Turtle and Dugong feeding grounds ignored plus major fish breeding habitat 100 metre minimum buffer ignored. Listed Migratory Species - Mangrove Point South (Turtle Cove) Claypan is a recognised Critical King Tide Roost for migratory birds with counts of critically endangered Far Eastern Curlew exceeding the one per cent Ramsar criteria. Planned 50 metre buffer ignores recommended EPBC bird buffers of 165 - 255 metres.
Request the House to fund acquisition of freehold Lot 996 SP129069 and Lot 124 SP156870 by the Crown, for the long term protection of Great Sandy Strait wetlands and Great Barrier Reef plus honour international agreements to which Australia is signatory namely Ramsar, JAMBA, CAMBA, ROKAMBA and EAAFP
from 225 citizens (Petition No. EN0487)
Taxation
We are petitioning the Government to remove the GST on Sanitary items The Government believes that our periods are a luxury and therefore our sanitary items incurring a 10% GST. Yet these items fall under medical goods and must have The Therapeutic Goods Association approval. Therefore this application of GST on sanitary products has a discriminatory effect on Australian women. The menstrual taboo remains so deeply embedded in our society that politicians, have and can easily avoid discussion on this topic. This has gone on for too long In the public sphere, Womens menstrual interests are neglected at a political level. Furthermore, the stigma and shame of menstruation, in conjunction with the underrepresentation of women in politics, inhibits productive discussions about Womens health issues. Menstruation is experienced by half of the Australian population and the majority of females will begin menstruation between the ages of ten to fourteen. A Natural bodily function of women and girls can no longer be disregarded and exploited for the purposes of revenue. Australia, its time to axe the tax, Period
We ask the house to remove the GST charged on sanitary items.
from 104,185 citizens (Petition No. EN0494)
Child Care
I'm speaking on behalf of my self and I'm sure what would be, a lot of other working 'partnered mothers'. We as working partnered mothers are trying to go to work to provide extra income for our families. I work for local government, helping individuals live independently in their own home, I love my job although day care fees really put a strain on going to work. I loose approximately 1/3 of my wage to child care, due to child care fees being determined on 'combined income' . Why do single mums that are not working or studying get 24 hours of day care per week at a low rate, when these mothers don't actually need to utilise this service? While working 'partnered mothers' are intitled to more hours except the fee that some of us pay does not make it worth going to work, especially because we are sacraficing quality time with our kids to work. Due to day care being 'partnered/combined income tested' I believe so many 'partnered mothers' are claiming single when they are not. The child care fees should be more costly for women that don't work or study and less costly for women that do work and/or study, no matter how much income the partner is earning.
Therefore I am asking to introduce child care fees for partnered couples tested on 'single income' not 'combined income'
from 42 citizens (Petition No. EN0495)
Taxation
Indigenous Business Australia continue to receive 10's of millions every year from taxpayers for almost 30 years now, and according to their latest financial report had over $270 million in cash reserves.
Divert funding from Indigenous Business Australia to Indigenous community driven enterprises who desperately need the funding to make a real difference and help close the widening disparity gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.
from 28 citizens (Petition No. EN0497)
Legal Defence
axpayer funding of legal defence costs for Members and Senators ruled to be ineligible for election to the Parliament. The signatories of this petition believe it is unfair on tax-payers to be held responsible for legal defence costs of these wrongly elected people.
We therefore ask the House to take any and all action possible to recover monies for these failed legal defences from those mentioned above. Furthermore we ask the House to legislate to make people ruled in the future to be wrongly elected, liable for all legal costs in these matters.
from 97 citizens (Petition No. EN0498)
Voting
WHEREAS voting at federal elections is compulsory under threat of fine. AND WHEREAS a formal vote is a correctly completed ballot paper and it is only the formal votes that are counted to determine the election result. AND WHEREAS an informal vote is a ballot paper that has not been completed following the rules for the election and thus cannot be used to determine the election result. AND WHEREAS informal votes include ballots where the elector failed to number the required number of boxes intentionally because of lack of support for the candidates. AND WHEREAS an elector has the right, and legal duty, at election time to vote for the candidates of their choice, and that if none of the candidates on that ballot paper meet the electors requirements, there should be a legal way of indicating this fact, as a formal vote against all names on that paper and still have it count towards the election result. AND WHEREAS other democracies around the world provide for a "None Of The Above" or "NOTA" ballot option, designed to allow the voter to indicate disapproval of all of the candidates.
Will the House Act to provide for a "None-Of-The-Above" or "NOTA" option on the ballot paper for all federal elections across all electorates and that if the majority of the electors were to vote "NOTA" in an electorate, it should force a fresh election and bring forth fresh candidates, thus indicating that the electors were casting their votes with care.
from 30 citizens (Petition No. EN0501)
Parliamentary Petitions
WHEREAS the current petition process, after an an individual manages to directly place their grievances before Parliament, with the object of persuading the Parliament to take a specific action in respect of a particular cause, may result in a "response" from the Minister within 90 days to the petition request, if the House has the power to act on the matter, but then the petition process seems to stop there, with no published course of action for a followup response for clarity from the petitioners, or any promise of action to be taken on the grievance - any response seems to be allowed, whether it results in the desired action or not. This is unsatisfactory.
Will the House act to ensure that for the Better Government of the Commonwealth; that if a House defined number of signatures are receivced for a petition (e.g. 10,000), that in addition to the Ministers response, that the petition request will also be scheduled for debate in the House, to improve public engagement with the political process and to make democracy more accessible, participatory and responsive to the will of the people, and to overcome political party policy influence in the response.
from 9 citizens (Petition No. EN0503)
Commonwealth Constitution
WHEREAS The Commonwealth Constitution establishes a Federal Parliament endowed with specific delegated and restricted, enumerated legislative powers, determined and limited by the grants themselves and by the express and implied constitutional prohibitions also found within the Constitution. As such, any legislative power not granted to the Federal Parliament, is so denied to it. These constitutional legislative authorities are often referred to as the Commonwealth's legislative "heads of power". AND WHEREAS there does not currently exist any requirement that the "head of power" used to make the Commonwealth laws, be referenced in the bill or act itself. AND WHEREAS unnecessary confusion exists in the public realm, respecting the validity of any such enactments or purported enactments, as the head of power for the enactment cannot be easily determined by the public via scrutiny of the legislation itself, therefore it is expedient that such confusion and doubt should be removed from the public realm, for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth, to ensure that Law and Justice in Mercy can be executed in all judgements, as a pretend law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all.
Will the House act to ensure that all legislation, both old and new, contain a section that clearly details the head of power(s) used to underpin the enactments or purported enactments and that if any legislation is found to be "beyond powers" as part of this process, action taken to repeal the legislation.
from 4 citizens (Petition No. EN0504)
Commonwealth Coat of Arms
WHERAS the Commonwealth Coat of Arms (COA) is the formal symbol of the Commonwealth of Australia and signifies Commonwealth authority and ownership and it is used by Australian Government departments and agencies, statutory and non-statutory authorities, the Parliament and Commonwealth courts and tribunals. AND WHEREAS the centre of the shield includes symbols of Australia's six states with the border of the shield symbolising federation. The shield is held up by the native Australian animals the kangaroo and the emu, which were chosen to symbolise a nation moving forward, based on the fact that neither animal can move backwards easily. A seven-point gold Commonwealth Star sits above the shield. Six of the star's points represent the Australian states and the seventh point represents the territories. A wreath of gold and blue sits under the Commonwealth Star. Gold and blue are the Commonwealth COA' 'livery', or 'identifying', colours. AND WHEREAS the people of the then Australian Colonies, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution thereby established. AND WHEREAS there is currently no Crown in the crest of the Commonwealth's COA, adding doubt to the Commonwealth's relationship with the Crown.
Will the House act to add the crown to the crest of the current COA, above the federation star, to signify the current allegiance to, and the protections offered by the crown to the people of Australia?
from 4 citizens (Petition No. EN0505)
Asylum Seekers
This petition of certain citizens of Australia from the Victorian municipality of Indigo, adjacent municipalities and communities and rural Australia draws the attention of the House to: a) The plight of people who have sought asylum in Australia but have been prevented by present Commonwealth law from enjoying its refuge; b) Our abiding concern that the Commonwealth, in its administration of such law and its consequent arrangements with the governments of Papua New Guinea and Republic of Nauru, continues to cause these people grave distress, indignity and discomfort; and c) The aspiration of many Australians in rural communities that the Commonwealth should relieve these people of such anguish..
We therefore ask the House to: a) Require the Commonwealth to expedite in partnership with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and governments of the United States of America and New Zealand, and suitable countries that will safeguard their protection and comfort, the resettlement of asylum seekers who are determined to be genuine refugees; b) Amend the law to require the immediate relocation to continental Australia of those people in Papua New Guinea and Nauru who seek asylum until their claims are determined; and c) Devise legislative mechanisms to aid and support the resettlement in suitable Australian rural communities of those relocated to continental Australia for assessment who are then determined to be refugees.
from 49 citizens (Petition No. EN0507)
Citizenship
To address the retrospective element within the proposed Citizenship Bill 2018 for current permanent residents, requiring them to be residents for 4 years, increased from the one year that was originally stipulated to them at the time of their visas being granted..
We therefore ask that current residents are subject to the original timescales and parameters in their applications for citizenship that were set out at the time of their visas being granted.
from 31 citizens (Petition No. EN0508)
Global Entry Programme
The United States of America has created a programme for expedited processing of foreign citizens when travelling to the United States. This programme is called "Global Entry." It allows citizens of certain nations, subject to the approval of their governments, to submit to a background check in the United States and, upon approval, receive automated and expedited entry into the country and expedited security screening for air travel within the United States. Citizens of many developed countries have access, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan, Mexico, Argentina, India, Colombia, and Panama, and we believe that Australian citizens have been left disadvantaged by our government's failure to negotiate entry in the programme. Access to Global Entry will increase bilateral trade, travel, and commerce, and will negate the apparent disadvantage Australian citizens have versus their American counterparts, who already have access to automated border control when entering Australia. Furthermore, it will put Australian citizens on par with those of other nations who have such preferential access to the United States. N.B.: the benefits of this programme are not comparable to those of the APEC Card programme; several of the above countries participate in both programmes.
Request that the House instruct the relevant department, most likely the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, to take all steps required to enter into a bilateral agreement with the United States of America that would allow Australian citizens to enrol in the "Global Entry" programme run by the Department of Homeland Security.
from 47 citizens (Petition No. EN0511)
Macedonia
Australia recognises the Republic of Macedonia as "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia." Australia says its position is in accordance with UN terminology. However, 140 UN members, including four of five permanent UN Security Council members (the UK, USA, Russia and China), recognise the Republic of Macedonia by its historical and constitutional name. In the spirit of democracy, fundamental freedoms, respect for human rights and dignity and the rule of law; Australia should also recognise the Republic of Macedonia by its historical and constitutional name.
We call upon the House of Representatives to follow the example of the UK, USA, Russia, China, Canada and 135 other countries and recognise the Republic of Macedonia by its historical and constitutional name.
from 10,097 citizens (Petition No. EN0512)
Health
National Health and Medical Research Commission endorsed Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention, Early Detection and Management of Colorectal (Bowel) Cancer recommend a maximum wait time of 120-days from first healthcare presentation to diagnostic colonoscopy for a patient with symptoms or after a positive bowel cancer screening test (FIT / iFOBT). Wait times exceeding 120-days are associated with poorer clinical outcomes, yet 90% of National Bowel Cancer Screening Program participants with a positive test are waiting between 116-181 days according to the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program Monitoring report 2017. According to the Guidelines, performing colonoscopy as promptly as possible minimises the risk of psychological harm in people experiencing symptoms or those with a positive test awaiting investigation. Prompt scheduling will also help to ensure any unexpected delays between general practice referral and colonoscopy do not flow on to exceed the 120-day threshold when prognosis can worsen if cancer exists.
We therefore ask the House to do all in its power to ensure the following are included in the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program and National Healthcare Agreement: 1. A maximum wait time of 120-days from first healthcare presentation to diagnostic colonoscopy for people with bowel cancer symptoms or a positive test; 2. Public reporting of colonoscopy wait-times by all healthcare facilities; 3. Adequate funding for diagnostic colonoscopy services across Australia; 4. Collection of patient-reported experience measures 30-days post-colonoscopy, with results publicly reported; 5. Minimum quality standards and key performance indicators (KPIs) for the delivery of colonoscopy, with public reporting of performance against the standards and KPIs.
from 3556 citizens (Petition No. EN0513)
Bullying
More education in schools about the effects of bullying.
We therefore ask that an anti bullying education bus visit schools, like the healthy Harold bus and provides videos, statements, words from anti bullying advocates
from 198 citizens (Petition No. EN0518)
Labelling
We the people of Australia would like to petition the government to make seafood labelling law in Australia we the people deserve the right to know what we are eating.We should have the choice to be able to eat Australian seafood and know where our seafood is from.As it is at the moment restaurants cafe pubs clubs are under no regulation to say where the seafood is sourced from.Labelling does not cover seafood and I feel we the people should have the choice.Fresh seafood has had to be labelled for years but seafood bought from restaurants cafes pubs clubs do not have to tell anyone they can just have FISH with no mention of what type of fish or which country it comes from .
We, therefore, ask the house to make it law for seafood to be labelled country of origin and what the fish is people have a right to know what they are consuming
from 61 citizens (Petition No. EN0523)
Macedonia
Australia recognises the Republic of Macedonia as "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia." Australia says its position is in accordance with UN terminology. However, 140 UN members, including four of five permanent UN Security Council members (the UK, USA, Russia and China), recognise the Republic of Macedonia by its historical and constitutional name. In the spirit of democracy, fundamental freedoms, respect for human rights and dignity and the rule of law; Australia should also recognise the Republic of Macedonia by its historical and constitutional name.
We call upon the House of Representatives to follow the example of the UK, USA, Russia, China, Canada and 135 other countries and recognise the Republic of Macedonia by its historical and constitutional name.
from 74 citizens (Petition No. EN0524)
Macedonia
The Citizens of Australia request that the House of Representatives of Australia retains the recognised name of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) as per the United Nations Agreement.
We request the House of Representatives respects the negotiations undertaken between Greece and FYROM and refrains from considering any action on this matter until negotiations are completed and formal agreements reached.
from 2745 citizens (Petition No. EN0525)
Taxation
The products are a must for woman all around the world. Being a medical supply not a luxurious item i require these in my life and believe that theu should not need a GST element. Make it more accessible for all woman
I request you remove the GST element of all sanitary item every woman uses.
from 30 citizens (Petition No. EN0526)
Infrastructure
Growing congestion on our roads is a massive problem for everyone, rapidly deteriorating. In the same time this is a problem that can be addressed by legislation, while providing far more reaching benefits then just clearing the roads for everyday Australian families, no matter the size of population growth. The year is 2018. Many jobs can be done remotely from the comfort of your home office. Software Developers and the entire IT industries, Financial, you name it - 90% of the staff don't need to be in the office. Old school management however are still stuck in the 70s mindset wanting to see bums on the seats, not realising far better way to engage their employees is to let them work remotely.
House, lets give this old mindset a push that it so desperately needs - introduce legislation to promote companies that enable their workers to work remotely from home office at least 4 days per 5 day working week via tax cuts per each such worker, while punishing via extra tax the companies that drag their workers into our congested central city offices for most days of the week. It is not the workers that create the congestion driving into the office, they are forced to go there. However with the level communications technology is currently at, there are no excuses but an old mind set that stops many from benefiting from a healthy lifestyle, spending more time with their family and less time congesting our roads.
from 5 citizens (Petition No. EN0527)
Commonwealth Constitution
The last few months have displayed an uprecedented and rather undignified chapter in Australian history when Members of Federal Parliament were compelled to resign due to an apparently ambiguous and obsolete section of the Constitution that could open up multiple interpretations and be made subject of political games. As a dual citizen in a multicultural country, I am respectfully seeking an amendment to the relevant section that stipulates an exclusion of eligibility for Federal Parliament candidacy in case of multiple citizenship. Strangely enough, this rule does not apply on either state or local government level, even though decisions made on these levels could also carry implications for these levels of governance (such as conflict of interest). The above section has no equivalent in other federal parliaments of the English-speaking world, such as the USA, Canada, Great Britain or New Zealand.
Therefore, the writer of these lines seeks to have Section 44 amended to allow dual (or multiple - Parliament to deliberate on an allowable number of nationalities) citizens to take office as Member of Federal Parliament - on condition that they: - dutifully declare this before their official nomination; - faithfully declare any conflicts of interest that may arise at voting in certain matters of state, be it political or commercial, whether in times of peace or in war and dutifully withdraw in case of conflict that may be present thereof. The writer of these lines respectfully asks members of the Australian public to endorse this petition. Thankfully and with best regards, Greg Hartay-Szabo
from 5 citizens (Petition No. EN0528)
Foreign Aid Grants
We therefore ask the House to: Reallocate the Foreign Aid Budget.
We ask that at least 33.3% of the yearly amount of Foreign AID Budget (or a minimum a total yearly amount of $1,000m per year) in amounts of up to $40m per grant be given only to registered Australian DGR charities that are working directly to help Australians only. The registered Australian DGR charities that have set up the executive management of the charity to operate at the lowest amount of operations costs should be the first to receive the Grants. All the Grants should allow the charity to use the Grants for anything so long as it is related to the work the charity is registered to operate within. That would include but not limited to Infrastructure, Vehicle purchase, Property Lease Payments, Insurance, Advertising, Logistics, Employees' Salaries & Wages. The Grants should be offered every year so long as the charity can show that the last Grant was used in accordance with the Grant rules. Charities that have not been able to operate due to the lack of funds should be given priority to be able to prove themselves and should not be discounted due to the fact that they have not had the funds to operate the charity. We also request that the House act on this and make it law as soon as possible within the next 12 months. Also the Foreign Aid budget be renamed to "Foreign and Domestic Aid Budget".
from 86 citizens (Petition No. EN0531)
South Africa
The passing of laws within South Africa that promotes government sanctioned persecution of a minority populace.
We request that visa applications made by South African nationals to emigrate to Australia because of political unrest and persecution in their home country be favorably considered and fast tracked as much as possible.
from 17 citizens (Petition No. EN0535)
Taxation
EN0494
I request consideration for removal of GST on sale of Female Sanitary Products as I feel these items being a necessity for good female hygiene
from 12 citizens (Petition No. EN0536)
Syria
The Turkish invasion of Kurdish held areas of Northern Syria, particularly around Afrin.
We therefore ask the House to consider strong and reasonable action to present our disapproval towards the Turkish military actions against the Kurdish people.
from 16 citizens (Petition No. EN0539)
South Africa
The Hon Peter Dutton MP recently voiced concern about the potential redistribution of farmland in South Africa, and the possible persecution of white South African farmers. He said "If people are being persecuted, regardless of…religion or the colour of their skin…we need to provide assistance where we can." He added, "They work hard, they integrate well into Australian society, they contribute to make us a better country and they're the sorts of migrants that we want…" We can't help but compare this to the direct actions the Australian government takes against people seeking asylum. There are men, women and children locked in onshore and offshore detention centres, the majority of whom have been assessed as genuine refugees yet are given the impossible choice of remaining incarcerated or returning to the persecution and hardship they sought refuge from. Those lucky enough to be settled within the Australian community while they wait for their refugee status to be determined are prevented from working, therefore feeding the ignorant rhetoric that people seeking asylum "sponge" off welfare. This diminishes opportunity for them to contribute, learn English, or "assimilate" – qualities Mr Dutton says we seek in those we deem worthy of migrating to our "civilised" nation.
We therefore ask the house to end this discriminatory, barbaric and hypocritical policy by: Bringing all people seeking asylum currently detained in offshore centres to Australia. Expediting the claims of all people currently seeking asylum in Australia. Permitting those whose claims are being processed to access work or education.
from 13 citizens (Petition No. EN0540)
Visas
To reconsider the route to permanent residency for people on a 457 visa granted after the April 2017 changes. And who's job is on the skilled MLTSSL.
I ask the house to open the option for PR to people on Subclass 457 visas who applied and were granted under the changes to be able to apply for PR after 2 years if their job is on the MLTSSL. This change would make it easier to Australia to retain skilled staff in the country without putting them through the added stress And worry of a full application.
from 3 citizens (Petition No. EN0547)
Data Collection
Tech companies are pervasive and misleading in their data collection practices. Self regulation of data has failed. The Government must act to protect its citizens.
Requesting the House amend the Australian Privacy Principles to include the Right for Erasure (the Right to Be Forgotten).
from 27 citizens (Petition No. EN0548)
Petitions received.
PETITIONS
Responses
Health
Dear Chair
I refer to Mr Ross Vasta's correspondence of 13 February 2017 regarding Standing Committee on Petitions, EN0070 - Obsolete and very old diagnostic imaging machines.
My Department has processes in place to assess obsolete services and older diagnostic imaging equipment.
My Department manages a program called the capital sensitivity measure which relates to the appropriate age of diagnostic imaging equipment eligible for claiming Medicare rebates. The intention of the measure is to encourage service providers to upgrade and replace (as appropriate) aged equipment with the aim of improving the delivery of quality diagnostic imaging services. This measure is legislated and where services are performed on equipment which exceeds the maximum life age (specific to each type of equipment), a lower Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) rebate is paid (approximately 50 per cent less).
In relation to concerns around contemporary services, the MBS Review Taskforce (the Taskforce) was established in 2015 to undertake a program of work across the entire MBS to consider how the items can be aligned with contemporary clinical evidence and practice and improve health outcomes for patients. The Taskforce is also identifying any services that are considered unnecessary, outdated or potentially unsafe.
The Diagnostic Imaging Clinical Committee, a subcommittee of the Taskforce, has undertaken a review of obsolete diagnostic imaging services and the capital sensitivity measure in the context of quality, safety and access to diagnostic imaging services. While changes have already been made to the MBS to remove obsolete diagnostic imaging services, recommendations in relation to capital sensitivity have been made to the Taskforce but are not yet finalised.
On 9 March 2018 the Senate Community Affairs References Committee tabled a report on the availability and accessibility of diagnostic imaging equipment around Australia. The Government is considering the report and will respond in due course.
Thank you for writing on this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Health, The Hon Greg Hunt MP
Privacy
Dear Mrs Wicks
Petition number: EN0114
I am writing in response to a letter from the Chair of the Standing Committee on Petitions dated 20 March 2017 to the Minster for Communications, regarding a petition about companies that sell individuals' personal information from their mailing lists. I apologise for the delay in responding to that letter. The petition has only recently come to the attention of my Office. The petition requests that 'it be written into law that companies not be allowed [to] sell contact information of persons who have ever appeared on their mailing lists.' As acting Australian Information Commissioner and acting Privacy Commissioner, the petition has been provided to me for response, as I have regulatory oversight of the Privacy Act 1988 (Privacy Act).
The Privacy Act includes 13 Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) that outline how entities must handle, use and manage personal information. The APPs apply to most Australian Government agencies, all private sector and not-for-profit organisations with an annual turnover of more than $3 million, all private health service providers and some small businesses (known as APP entities). Personal information is information or an opinion that identifies or could reasonably identify an individual. Some examples are an individual's name, address, phone number, email address, date of birth, medical records, bank account details, and opinions.
Businesses covered by the Privacy Act will generally need to comply with the APPs, when selling individuals' personal information from their mailing lists. Some of the relevant APPs are outlined below.
APP 6 outlines when an APP entity may use or disclose personal information. The intent is that an entity will generally use and disclose an individual's personal information only in ways the individual would expect or where an exception applies. If an APP entity holds personal information about an individual that was collected for a specific purpose (the primary purpose), the entity must not use or disclose the information for another purpose (the secondary purpose). Exceptions apply where, for example, the individual has consented to the use or disclosure, or where the individual would reasonably expect the secondary use or disclosure and the secondary purpose is related to the primary purpose. For example, an APP entity that sells or otherwise discloses individuals' contact information on a mailing list may only do so where this is within the individuals' reasonable expectation and related to the primary purpose of collection, or covered by another exception to APP 6.
APP 6 does not apply to the use or disclosure by an organisation of personal information for the purposes of direct marketing.
APP 7 provides that an organisation must not use or disclose personal information it holds for the purposes of direct marketing unless an exception applies, Direct marketing involves the use or disclosure of personal information to communicate directly with an individual to promote goods and services. There are some exceptions to the requirements set out in APP 7, including for example, where the individual would reasonably expect their personal information to be used for the purpose of direct marketing. Where an organisation is permitted to use or disclose personal information for the purpose of direct marketing, it must always:
allow an individual to request not to receive direct marketing communications (also known as 'opting out'), and
comply with that request.
An organisation must, on request, provide its source for an individual's personal information, unless it is impracticable or unreasonable to do so. Direct marketing involving sensitive information (such as health information) requires the individuals' consent.
APP 7 does not apply to the extent that the Spam Act 2003 (Cth) (Spam Act) or the Do not Call
Register Act 2006 (Cth) (DNCR Act) apply. The Spam Act applies to commercial electronic messages (such as those sent using email, instant message, SMS or MMS) and requires:
commercial electronic messages to be sent with the consent of the recipient
accurate sender identification including the sender's contact information, and
a functional unsubscribe mechanism.
Telemarketers and fax marketers must not call or fax numbers listed on the Do Not Call Register as required under the DNCR Act. However, some exemptions apply and the DNCR Act will not apply where the calls or faxes are made by exempt entities (such as registered charities or political parties), where the calls or faxes are made by market researchers conducting opinion polling or social research, or an individual has consented to the call or fax.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority has the primary regulatory responsibility for the Spam Act and the DNCR Act.
Where an individual considers that an APP entity has breached an APP, they should first complain to the APP entity. If the APP entity does not respond within 30 days, or the individual is dissatisfied with the response, the individual can bring a complaint to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC). The OAIC has a range of regulatory powers under the Privacy Act, including for example, the ability to make determinations in complaint investigations and 'Commissioner initiated investigations', accept an enforceable undertaking and bring proceedings to enforce an undertaking and seeking a civil penalty from the courts in the case of a serious or repeated interference with privacy.
I trust that this Information is of assistance. If you would like to discuss this matter or have any questions, please contact Sophie Higgins, Director, Regulation & Strategy, on (02) 9284 9775 or Sophie.Higgins@oaic.gov.au.
Yours sincerely
from the Acting Australian Information Commissioner, Acting Privacy Commissioner, Angelene Falk
Employment
Dear Mr Vasta
Petition to seek public comment on public sector remuneration prior to approval
Thank you for your letter of 20 June 2017 concerning Standing Committee on Petitions - Request for all APS salary/packages to be made public - EN0174.
The setting of remuneration packages in the Commonwealth public sector is done in a number of different ways.
The Remuneration Tribunal is an expert, independent body responsible for determining the remuneration arrangements for federal Parliamentarians, judicial and non-judicial offices of federal courts and tribunals, Secretaries of Departments and holders of various pubic offices. Its decisions are publicly available and are available on its website: http://www.remtribunal.gov.au/.
The remuneration for 98 per cent of Australian public service employees is set through enterprise bargaining. These are negotiated between the employer, employees and their bargaining representatives. Most agencies publish these on their websites and all are publicly available on the Fair Work Commission's website. Agencies are also encouraged to publish remuneration information in their annual reports. The Australian Public Service Commission also publishes an annual report on the remuneration paid across the APS. It is available the public on its website: http://www.apsc.gov.ati/.
Pay setting and negotiation is a complex process. The inclusion of a public feedback step in such processes is not practical and for processes such as enterprise bargaining, it would be inconsistent with the principles of bargaining.
Thank you for submitting this suggestion.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Employment, Minister for Women, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash
Health Care
Dear Chair
I refer to your correspondence of 5 December 2017 concerning Petition EN0364 regarding Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency (AATD) and fast tracking of funding arrangements for AATD therapies.
I note the request in the petition relates to an earlier petition, PN0086, which I wrote to you on 6 November 2017.
Augmentation therapies for AATD are blood-related products derived from human plasma. In Australia, there are generally two mechanisms by which patients can obtain publicly-funded access to such products:
products may be supplied to patients through an approved health provider (which includes both public and private hospitals) under the national blood arrangements; or
products may be supplied to an individual patient through a hospital under arrangements put in place by the hospital or the relevant state or territory government.
The National Blood Authority (NBA) acts on behalf of the Commonwealth and state and territory governments to administer the national blood arrangements. The policy and administrative arrangements for the national blood arrangements were agreed by all governments under the National Blood Agreement (the Agreement), with funding of the arrangements shared between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. Schedule 4 of the Agreement outlines the process for determining what products should be supplied and funded by governments under the national arrangements.
A comprehensive framework has been developed by the NBA to assess Schedule 4 applications. Where appropriate, the Commonwealth's Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) health technology assessment process is used to inform the cost-effectiveness of proposals.
The MSAC process is a staged and structured process which takes approximately 12 months to complete. The process includes development of an assessment protocol and conducting evidence-based assessment against that protocol. The assessment engages expert consultants and is supported by industry and patient consultation throughout. This ensures that the most appropriate recommendations are made to support decision making on applications.
There are two Alpha-1 proteinase inhibitor products that have been registered on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods for the treatment of AATD and the NBA has received Schedule 4 applications from both potential suppliers of these products for consideration for funding under the national blood arrangements.
In December 2017, the Jurisdictional Blood Committee (JBC) agreed to progress the applications through the MSAC pathway. This process will commence in 2018 and the duration will depend on the complexity of the proposals, cost and the views of jurisdictions. As there is potentially more than one supplier, a tender might also be required following the evaluation and approval processes.
The evaluation process will also require consideration by the JBC, with submission to the Council of Australian Governments Health Council for decision.
I would like to note the potential for registered products to be supplied to individuals outside of these arrangements. It may be possible for doctors to prescribe products for medical conditions that are not funded under the national blood arrangements through a public hospital via the local hospital therapeutics committee.
These local arrangements vary between hospitals and jurisdictions. Those with AATD can approach their doctors or their relevant state or territory government regarding funding through such an arrangement.
Thank you for writing on this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Health, The Hon Greg Hunt MP
Personal Information
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your correspondence of 5 December 2017 to the former Attorney-General, Senator the Hon George Brandis QC, concerning petition number EN0366. Your letter has been forwarded to me as I have portfolio responsibility for policy matters regarding federal child sex offenders.
The petition requests the publication of child sex offenders' personal addresses. The Australian Government is committed to protecting vulnerable children from the dangers posed by registered child sex offenders, both in Australia and overseas. That is why, in October 2017, the Australian Government formed the National Working Group on Child Sex Offenders.
The Working Group, which comprises senior police and law and justice officials from all Australian jurisdictions, was tasked with exploring legislative and operational mechanisms to combat the dangers that child sex offenders pose to the community. As part of its Terms of Reference, the Working Group is undertaking a review of the available evidence to assess the efficacy of limited public notification schemes.
The Working Group is due to present its final report to the Ministerial Council for Police and Emergency Management in mid 2018. Atthis time, Ministers from all Australian jurisdictions will consider the findings and recommendations of the Working Group's report.
Thank you for referring the petition. Itrust this information is of assistance. Yours sincerely
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, The Hon Peter Dutton MP
Safe Schools Coalition Australia
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 5 December 2017 regarding Petitions EN0395 and EN0384 concerning the Safe Schools Coalition Australia program and proposed national safety classifications on content delivered in Australian schools.
The Safe Schools Coalition Australia program was a four-year program (2013-17) instigated by the previous Labor government, just prior to the 2013 election. The contract concluded in 2017 and received its final funding instalment in the 2016-17 financial year.
The Turnbull Government will not be providing further funding to this program.
Following an independent review into the program, the Australian Government introduced a series of reforms, including amending materials found to be of concern and implementing parent body consent arrangements in the signing up of a school to the program. Parental consent was also introduced where students were likely to participate in classroom or group based program activities.
Upon announcement of these reforms, the Victorian and Australian Capital Territory Governments declared their exit from the national program as they did not wish to continue to operate the program under the new conditions. As such, Australian Government funding to Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory ceased immediately.
I note the request for a national safety classification on content delivered in schools. The National Classification Scheme provides information to the community to help Australians make informed choices about entertainment media. Under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (the Act), written materials provided in schools are not required to be classified by the Classification Board as they do not fall under the definition of a `submittable publication'. A `submittable publication' is a publication that is likely to warrant restriction to adults, such as an adult magazine. The Act provides that only `submittable publications' require classification before they can be legally distributed or advertised. The Act also exempts certain types of films from requiring classification, including films for the purposes of training, instruction or reference, or a lesson or a guide, unless the film contains material that would likely cause the film to be classified M or higher.
It is important to note that state and territory curriculum and school education authorities are responsible for implementation of the Australian Curriculum in their schools. They do this in line with system and jurisdictional policies and requirements. The Australian Curriculum for Foundation to Year 10 sets the expectations for what all young Australians should be taught, regardless of where they live or their background. The curriculum has been designed to be flexible so that it can be adapted or adopted in order to meet the needs of all schools and their communities.
The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority provides guidance and support materials to teachers, principals and parents in understanding and implementing the curriculum.
Further information on the Australian Curriculum is available at www.australiancurriculum.edu.au.
Thank you for bringing these petitions to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Education and Training, Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham
Child Support
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 5 December 2017 to the former Minister for Social Services, the Hon Christian Porter MP, regarding a petition presented to the House of Representatives that requests a number of changes to child support policy (EN0391). I am responding to your letter as child support policy and legislation now fall within my portfolio responsibilities.
As the petition raises a number of different issues, I have addressed these under separate headings.
Child support should be a fixed yearly amount for all children rather than a variable rate based on income, with the amount to be contributed equally by both parents
Child support assessments are generally based on the child support formula, which uses both parents' adjusted taxable incomes from the last relevant financial year and the level of care they provide for their children.
The child support formula also uses the Costs of the Children Table, which is based on the best available evidence about the costs of raising children in Australia. The Costs of the Children Table was the result of extensive research, commissioned by an independent Ministerial Taskforce on Child Support in 2004, into how much parents spend on children at different taxable income levels, while also taking into consideration Australian Government payments such as Family Tax Benefit. The research found that the costs of children are different in households with different taxable income levels, numbers of children and children of different ages.
More information on the research can be found in the publication, In the Best Interests of Children — Reforming the Child Support Scheme, available at www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/families-and-children/publications-articles.
The Costs of the Children Table provides percentages for each portion of income above the self-support threshold at differing income brackets. This reflects the research findings that parents spend more on children the more money they have, but spend less as a percentage of their household income in the higher income ranges.
The petition suggests that there should be a fixed annual rate of child support for all children, rather than a variable rate based on both parents' incomes and the level of care they provide for their children. Such an approach would not align with research on the costs of raising children. It would also mean that child support would not be assessed according to capacity, with some parents assessed to pay more than they could afford, causing possible financial hardship, and others assessed to pay less than they could afford. A key principle of the scheme is that children are supported by their parents in accordance with their financial capacity to do so.
While a formula assessment reflects the needs of most separated families, sometimes the special circumstances of a case mean the formula does not adequately address the situation of both parents and their children. The special circumstances of either parent are not included in the child support formula, as special circumstances and the related out-of-pocket expenses cannot be predetermined.
Under the current system, if either parent believes their child support assessment is unfair because of the special circumstances of their case, they can seek a review under the change of assessment process. The change of assessment process allows the Department of Human Services (DHS) to examine the broader financial circumstances of both parents to determine an appropriate amount of child support payable. This is important to ensure the system is fair and works in the best interest of children.
Child support should be paid onto a basics card with an online portal to view spending
The Department of Human Services (DHS) is currently unable to request that receiving parents report on how their child support entitlement is spent. Requiring parents to report on how child support is spent and restricting the spending of child support to certain approved businesses and services would be administratively burdensome for parents. There are a number of ways a receiving parent can spend child support for the benefit of children, including on direct costs such as food and clothing, as well as indirect costs such as housing and transport.
There is flexibility within the child support scheme to recognise payments made directly to the receiving parent or a third party for the benefit of the child in lieu of child support, such as school fees or housing costs. This type of payment is called a non-agency payment and can provide a level of assurance to parents seeking to have input into how child support is spent. Either parent may ask for the non-agency payment to be counted as child support, but both parents must agree the payment or part of the payment was made in lieu of child support.
DHS can also credit certain prescribed payments towards the liable parent's child support liability regardless of the intention of the parent at the time the payment was made. This can include, for example, essential medical or dental costs for the child.
However, only paying parents who have less than 14 per cent care of all of the children of the child support assessment are able to claim prescribed non-agency payments. The rationale behind this approach is that a paying parent with more than 14 per cent care is recognised as meeting 24 per cent of the costs of the child, resulting in a reduced child support liability. Further reduction in ongoing child support by allowing credit for prescribed non-agency payments would reduce the discretionary funds available to the receiving parent to meet day-to-day expenses, such as rent and utility bills, to an unacceptable level. Child support payments are intended for the day-to-day costs associated with raising children.
The maintenance income test should be changed so that child support does not affect the amount of Family Tax Benefit a person is entitled to receive
The child support scheme seeks to ensure parents continue to provide financial support for their children following family separation according to their capacity to do so, whereas the joint financial resources of the household determine the eligibility of the household for family assistance payments. The provision of government assistance recognises community expectations that parents rely on their own resources before seeking support from the Government. Eligibility for Family Tax Benefit is based on the principle of helping those families most in need.
Under the'maintenance income test', fortnightly Family Tax Benefit payments are automatically adjusted whenever child support payments, including arrears payments, are received. The maintenance income test applies to families who are eligible for an above base rate of Family Tax Benefit Part A and who receive child support. The maintenance income test allows parents to receive $1,587.75 per year of child support (for single parents, or one of a couple receiving maintenance); or $3,175.50 per year (for couples each receiving maintenance); plus $529.25 for each child after the first, before reducing the maximum rate of Family Tax Benefit Part A for a child by 50 cents for each dollar of child support received over this amount. It cannot be reduced below the base rate. This ensures Family Tax Benefit recipients receiving child support are not worse off.
The maintenance income test for Family Tax Benefit Part A ensures that in years where a parent receives a lower amount of child support, they may be paid more Family Tax Benefit Part A, so they have adequate resources to support their child. Similarly, in years where a parent receives a higher amount of child support, they have their Family Tax Benefit Part A adjusted to take the payment into account.
In general, child support and family assistance work together to ensure the costs of the children are met by both parents, with the support of the Government where necessary.
Overtime and second jobs should be excluded from child support assessments
A key principle of the child support scheme is that children should be supported by their parents in line with their financial capacity to do so. Therefore, when a paying parent's income increases, child support payments will generally increase. Conversely, when a paying parent's income decreases, child support payments will generally decrease to reflect this change in circumstances. This policy helps to ensure parents are supporting their children in line with their financial capacity to do so at any given time.
If overtime and other additional income were excluded from child support assessments, this would not accurately reflect a parent's true financial capacity to support their children.
Child support legislation allows for the exclusion of additional income for a period of three years from separation to assist either parent with their re-establishment costs.
This provision applies to parents who can show their additional income is earned for the purpose of meeting the costs of re-establishment. Parents may earn this additional income from a variety of sources, such as overtime, taking on a second job, investment income or a career change to a higher paying job. This provision is subject to a three-year time limit because parents will generally achieve greater stability in their arrangements the longer they have been separated.
Care percentages should take into account days and weeks of care rather than just nights, reducing the assessment in accordance with the paying parent ' s actual care
The child support scheme recognises the costs of care in a way that is as fair as possible to both parents, and aims to help both parents maintain significant and meaningful contact with their children.
When OHS determines the percentages of care, it is not restricted to where the child lives or stays overnight. OHS may take into account the amount of time during both day and night that each parent cares for the child, as well as who is responsible for making arrangements for, and decisions about, the child's welfare. For example, if one parent provides a significant amount of care during the day, a care percentage based on hours may be used. More information on how care other than in nights may be used can be found under topic 2.2.1 of the Child Support Guide, available online at www.guides.dss.gov.au/child-support-guide.
The petition suggests that where a paying parent is providing care for a child, the assessment should be reduced in accordance with the daily rate for the number of days or weeks that the child is in the paying parent's care. The current child support formula was introduced in 2008 using extensive research undertaken by a Ministerial Taskforce on the costs of caring for children in Australia, benchmarked against international studies. Under the current formula, a parent who has between 14 and 34 per cent care (52 to 127 nights per year), or 'regular' care, is considered to be meeting 24 per cent of the children's costs. This is known as the parent's 'cost percentage'.
A parent with 35 to 65 per cent care (128 to 237 nights per year) is considered to have 'shared' care. The child support formula recognises that a parent with 35 per cent care is meeting 25 per cent of the children's costs. For every percentage point of care over 35 per cent, the parent is considered to meet an additional 2 per cent of the children's costs.
The Taskforce found a parent with regular care of their children incurs costs mainly relating to infrastructure, such as appropriate accommodation and bedding, which do not vary significantly within the regular care threshold. The sliding scale within the shared care threshold recognises, however, that parents with at least 35 per cent care incur more costs, including expenditure on food, entertainment and transport, the more time the children are in their care.
For more information on the Taskforce's findings, you may wish to view the Report, 'In the Best Interests of Children — Reforming the Child Support Scheme' available at www.dss.eov.au/our-resoonsibilities/families-and-childrenfpublications-articles.
Parents should not be able to apply for a change of assessment on the basis of the other parent ' s ' capacity to earn ' (Reason 8)
As outlined earlier, if either parent believes their child support assessment is unfair because of the special circumstances of their case, they can seek a review under the change of assessment process. The change of assessment process allows DHS to examine the broader financial circumstances of both parents to determine an appropriate amount of child support payable.
Under Reason 8 of the change of assessment process, DHS can change an assessment based on the earning capacity of either parent. In order to establish that a parent has a greater capacity to earn income, DHS must be satisfied the parent is not working despite ample opportunity to do so, and their decision is not justified by either their caring responsibilities or state of health. DHS must also consider whether the parent's earnings have been reduced due to an intention to vary the level of child support to their own advantage. More information on Reason 8 of the change of assessment process can be found under topic 2.6.14 of the Child Support Guide, available at www.Ruides.dss.gov.au/child-support-guide.
The Government is committed to helping families manage their responsibilities for their children following separation and will continue to monitor the effect of child support legislation. This petition makes an important contribution to this monitoring process.
Thank you again for writing. I trust this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Social Services, The Hon Dan Tehan MP
RV Industry
Dear Chair
Request for government inquiry into the RV industry
Thank you for your letter dated 6 February 2018 to the Hon Bamaby Joyce MP, former Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, about Petition EN0400. As the matters raised fall within my portfolio responsibility, your letter has been forwarded to me for reply.
The petition calls for an Australian Government inquiry into the RV Industry, requests regulators respond to complaints, and consideration be given as to whether the judiciary is upholding the objects of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). The term recreational vehicles can include a wide range of vehicles some of which are not road vehicles (such as quad bikes or jet skis). This petition relates to caravans and camper trailers.
As the issues raised in the petition relate to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and the Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989 (the MVSA), I have consulted with The Treasury, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities.
The ACL is a national consumer protection law jointly administered by the ACCC and State consumer affairs/fair trading agencies. The ACL provides a legislative framework of consumer protections and remedies for consumers in relation to:
defective goods and services (consumer guarantees)
prohibitions against misleading and deceptive conduct and unconscionable conduct
unfair contract term protections
a harmonised national product safety and enforcement system
national laws covering a number of sales practices and enforcement powers
The ACCC is aware of the concerns raised in the petition, and more generally, complaints from consumers that it is difficult to obtain remedies from traders in the caravan industry. A recent review of the ACL and the ACCC's ongoing enforcement activities may address concerns raised in the petition.
In June 2015, the Australian Consumer Affairs Ministers, through the Legislative and Governance Forum on Consumer Affairs (CAF), asked Consumer Affairs Australia and New Zealand (CAANZ) to initiate a broad-reaching review of the ACL. In March 2017, CAANZ presented the Final Report of the ACL Review (the Review) to consumer affairs ministers for further consideration.
Consequently, on 9 March 2018, a Consultation Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) was released to clarify, simplify and modernise the consumer guarantee framework. Specifically the RIS raises four key areas of the consumer guarantee framework that are being consulted on:
increasing the threshold in the definition of 'consumer' from $40,000 to $100,000
clarifying the consumer guarantees remedies (comprised of two proposals — failure within a short period of time and multiple failures)
enhanced disclosure for extended warranties
access to consumer guarantees for goods sold at auctions
These enhanced proposals may influence the RV industry and resolve many of the issues raised in the petition. Members of industry and the community are encouraged to make submissions to MS by 23 April 2018. Further information is available at The Treasury website at wvvw.consult.treasury.gov.au/market-and-competition-policy-division/c20184271629/.
Consistent with the ACCC Compliance and Enforcement Policy, which focus on matters that will provide the greatest overall benefit, the ACCC takes enforcement action with a view to maximising the impact across an industry. An example of this enforcement policy is the recent action taken on
29 November 2017 to commence proceedings in the Federal Court against Jayco Corporation Pty Ltd (Jayco), Australia's largest caravan manufacturer.
Whilst this matter is still before the Court, the ACCC alleges that Jayco acted unconscionably towards four customers by obstructing them from obtaining redress, such as a refund or replacement for their defective caravan. Jayco allegedly did this despite knowing the caravans were defective and not functioning properly, even after repeated, and failed, repair attempts. The ACCC has issued a media release, available at www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-takes-action-against-jayco.
The ACCC is also intending to write to a range of manufacturers and dealers in the RV industry to encourage other industry participants to improve their behaviours.
In addition to consumer protection laws, the Australian Government regulates the manufacture, importation and first supply to the market of road vehicles (including RV motorhomes, campervans, caravans and camper trailers) to ensure an acceptable level of safety, emission control and anti-theft protection across the Australian vehicle fleet. The Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities administers these arrangements under the Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989 and Motor Vehicle Standards Regulations 1989.
On 7 February 2018, I introduced the Road Vehicle Standards package of Bills into the House of Representatives. These Bills were developed following extensive consultation with vehicle industry, consumers and the wider stakeholder community to update and modernise the regulation of road vehicles. The Road Vehicle Standards Bills are designed to maintain and improve vehicle safety while expanding consumer choice and reducing red tape.
An enhanced and modernised suite of compliance monitoring and enforcement tools is included in the Bills to deter and detect non-compliant behaviour. This will in turn encourage compliance and conformity through improved regulatory performance and strengthen the legislation's benefits to the community. In addition to the current powers to vary, suspend or revoke approvals, and bring proceedings for criminal offences, the proposed enforcement tools include:
infringement notices (administratively applied financial penalties)
civil penalty orders (court imposed financial penalties)
enforceable undertakings
injunctions
These tools will allow for an efficient and appropriate response to addressing identified breaches of the legislation.
The Bills will also provide the responsible Minister strong powers to mandate the recall of vehicles if serious safety issues arise. These powers will apply to all road vehicles supplied in Australia, whether for private or commercial use, providing the Australian Government with the necessary powers to uphold our national safety standards.
Further information on these reforms is also available at the Departments website at
www.infrastructure.gov.au/vehicles/mv_standards_act/index.aspx.
These intended amendments to the road vehicle legislation and enforcement powers, if passed by Parliament, will assist in addressing the concerns raised in the petition.
If consumers, industry or other regulators have concerns about unsafe or noncompliant caravans or camper trailers, I would encourage them to report concerns to the Department. Concerns may be reported using the Department's online form available at www.infrastructure.gov.au/vehicles/reporting/index.aspx.
Information provided to the Department is assessed and used to identify safety or non-compliance issues across various makes and models of vehicles. All reports of vehicle safety issues, or non-compliance with current Motor Vehicle Standards legislation, are taken seriously.
Where there is sufficient evidence, the Department may investigate systemic safety issues or non-compliance with the legislation and technical standards. Information may also inform audit and compliance activities for entities regulated under the MVSA.
A range of factors is taken into account in assessing whether a reported issue will be investigated. These include:
whether there has been a death or injury
an identifiable safety issue related to the design or manufacture of the vehicle
an identifiable non-compliance with:
a mandatory standard (such as the Australian Design Rules)
conditions of an approval
other Motor Vehicle Standards legislation
number of similar reports
age and use of the vehicle
Under a risk-based Compliance and Enforcement Strategy, the Department continues to work with caravan manufacturers, industry bodies, other regulators and the public to identify areas of non-compliance, and where appropriate, take action to address non-compliance, and encourage a return to compliant behaviour.
Based on current enforcement strategies, action against Australia's largest caravan manufacturer, the comprehensive review of both consumer laws and road vehicle legislation already, I consider an Australian Government inquiry into the RV Industry is not required.
Thank you for bringing the petition to my attention. I trust this information will be of assistance to the Committee.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities, The Hon Paul Fletcher MP
Safe Schools Coalition Australia
Thank you for your letters of 6 February 2018 regarding Petitions EN0437 and EN0409 concerning the Safe Schools Coalition Australia (SSCA) program and delivery of sexuality education in Australian schools.
The Safe Schools Coalition Australia program was a four-year program (2013-17) instigated by the previous Labor government, just prior to the 2013 election. The contract and funding ended in 2017. The Turnbull Government will not be providing further funding to this program.
Following an independent review into the program in 2016, the Australian Government introduced a series of reforms, including amending materials found to be of concern and implementing parent body consent arrangements in the signing up of a school to the program. Parental consent was also introduced where students were likely to participate in classroom or group based program activities.
Since the announcement of these reforms, the Victorian and Australian Capital Territory Governments announced their exit from the national program and did not wish to continue to operate the program under the new conditions. As such, Australian Government funding to Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory ceased immediately.
Regarding concerns around the teaching of sexuality in schools, it is important to note that state and territory curriculum and school education authorities are responsible for implementation of the Australian Curriculum in their schools. They do this in line with system and jurisdictional policies and requirements. The Australian Curriculum for Foundation to Year 10 sets the expectations for what all young Australians should be taught, regardless of where they live or their background. The curriculum has been designed to be flexible so that it can be adapted or adopted in order to meet the needs of all schools and their communities.
The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority provides guidance and support materials to teachers, principals and parents in understanding and implementing the curriculum. Further information on the Australian Curriculum is available at www.australiancurriculum.edu.au.
The Government respects the right of parents to choose the best school for their child, however each state and territory is responsible for policies relating to parental consent for the programs run in their schools. Parents are well within their rights to ask that their child be withdrawn from lessons that they feel are in conflict with their beliefs, and should they decide to withdraw their child from a specific class or classes, the school must provide alternate educational activities for them to participate in.
Thank you again for writing on this matter. I trust this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Education and Training, Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham
Citizenship Disclosure
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 14 February 2018 regarding Petition EN0412 presented in the House of Representatives on 5 February 2018 seeking to establish who was legally able to be elected for the 45th Australian Parliament'. I appreciate the time you have taken to bring this matter to my attention.
The Parliamentary citizenship disclosure regime instituted in late 2017 requires each Parliamentarian to make a formal declaration to the Registrar of Member's Interests or the Registrar of Senator's Interests that they are not dual citizens, and to provide supporting information — such as where their parents were born, and what steps (if any) they have taken to renounce any dual citizenship they might have had. The statements were published in December 2017. Statements of Members of Parliament in relation to citizenship are available here:
https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators and Members/Members/Citizenship.
If a statement made under this regime raises questions about the eligibility of a Parliamentarian, it is a matter for the House in which an eligibility question arises to determine whether to refer the question to the Court of Disputed Returns.
Yours sincerely
from the Attorney-General, The Hon Christian Porter MP
Citizenship Register
Thank you for your letter of 14 February 2018 regarding Petition EN0415 presented in the House of Representatives on 5 February 2018 requesting that 'all politicians in Government in Australia immediately prove their single Australian citizenship status.' I appreciate the time you have taken to bring this matter to my attention.
The Parliamentary citizenship disclosure regime instituted in late 2017 requires each Parliamentarian to make a formal declaration to the Registrar of Member's Interests or the Registrar of Senator's Interests that they are not dual citizens, and to provide supporting information, such as where their parents were born, and what steps (if any) they have taken to renounce any dual citizenship they might have had. The statements were published in December 2017. Statements of Members of the House of Representatives in relation to citizenship are available here: https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators and Members/Members/Citizenship.
Senators' citizenship statements are available here:
littps://www.aphAtov.au/Parliamentary Business/Committees/Senate/Senators Interests/CitizenshipRegister.
The steps sought in Petition EN0415 are unnecessary as appropriate measures are in place under the Parliamentary citizenship disclosure regime. If a statement made under this regime raises questions about the eligibility of a Parliamentarian, it is a matter for the House in which an eligibility question arises to determine whether to refer the question to the Court of Disputed Returns.
Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. I trust this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Attorney-General, The Hon Christian Porter MP
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
I refer to your correspond of 6 February 2018 regarding a petition submitted to the
Standing Committee on Petitions (EN0419) seeking the exercise of my discretionary power to approve the supply of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) medicines at premises in East Victoria Park, WA.
My discretionary power is designed to address circumstances where there is an unintended consequence of the Pharmacy Location Rules. I can only exercise my discretionary power if I am satisfied that a decision to not approve a pharmacist would result in a community being left without reasonable access to PBS medicines, and it is in the public interest to do so.
I can confirm that in November 2017 I decided not to consider a request by a pharmacist, for approval to supply PBS medicines at premises in East Victoria Park, as I was not satisfied that the two statutory requirements had been met.
In particular, I found that there were already three PBS approved pharmacies located within a 1 km radius of the proposed premises. Based on this, I was satisfied that my decision to not approve the proposed premises would not leave a community without reasonable access to the supply of PBS medicines.
The pharmacist has been provided with a Statement of Reasons for my decision, which included detailed findings and reasons for my decision. Once a decision has been made not to approve the supply of PBS medicines using the discretionary power, it is unable to be reversed.
Thank you for drawing this petition to my attention. Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Health, The Hon Greg Hunt MP
Mental Health
Dear Chair
I refer to your letter of 6 February 2018 on behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, concerning pet umber EN0422. I regret the delay in responding.
The petition requested that the Prime Minister, the Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP, and Attorney-General, the Hon Christian Porter MP, abolish all state and territory mental health Acts and Commonwealth legislation related to involuntary treatment for mental illness, and consider replacing these with a federal human rights and reparations Act.
Under the Australian Constitution, state governments are responsible for the delivery of specialised public mental health services in Australia. Each state and territory has developed its own legislation on how to ensure the safety and welfare of people with mental illness, including the use of involuntary assessment and treatment. While the Commonwealth continues have an active interest in this area it cannot intervene in state legislation on mental health.
The Commonwealth is committed to supporting the elimination of restrictive practices, such as the use of seclusion and restraint, to protect the dignity and rights of people accessing mental health services. The Commonwealth continues to work with state and territory governments, under the auspices of the Council of Australian Governments Health Council, towards the elimination of restraint and seclusion in mental health care, through the cross jurisdictional Safety and Quality Partnership Standing Committee.
Thank you for writing on this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Health, The Hon Greg Hunt MP
Australia Act 1986 (UK)
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 6 February 2018 regarding Petition EN0424, which asks for the House of Representatives to declare and clarify a number of matters concerning the Australia Act 1986 (UK) and its interaction with the Commonwealth of Australia's independence.
Consistent with longstanding practice, it would not be appropriate for me to provide or disclose legal advice to the Committee. A declaration or clarification in the terms sought by the petitioner would necessarily entail the provision of legal advice about the effect of the Australia Act 1986 (UK).
I appreciate the time you have taken to bring this matter to my attention.
Thank you for raising this matter with me.
Yours sincerely
from the Attorney-General, The Hon Christian Porter MP
Legal Advice
Thank you for your letter of 6 February 2018 regarding petition EN0425, which asks the House of Representatives to declare and clarify a number of matters concerning the status and powers of the Crown in Australia. I appreciate the time you have taken to bring this matter to my attention.
Consistent with longstanding practice, it would not be appropriate for me to provide or disclose legal advice to the Committee. A declaration or clarification in the terms sought by the petitioner would necessarily entail the provision of legal advice about the status and powers of the Crown.
Thank you for raising this matter with me.
Yours sincerely
from the Attorney-General, The Hon Christian Porter MP
Health Care
I refer to your letter of 6 Mary 2018 concerning a petition for free influenza vaccines for children.
As you are aware, the Australian Government is a strong supporter of immunisation in recognition that it is a safe way to prevent the spread of many diseases like influenza. While the Government supports vaccination, it is not our intention to make immunisation mandatory.
Seasonal influenza vaccination is recommended for any person over six months of age who wishes to reduce the likelihood of becoming ill with influenza. Through the National Immunisation Program (NIP), the Government provides free seasonal influenza vaccines to groups most at risk of infection with and poor outcomes from influenza. These groups include those aged six months and older with medical conditions that predispose them to severe influenza.
Free seasonal influenza vaccines are also available through the NIP for a range of other at risk groups including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children aged six months to less than five years, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait [slander people 15 years and older.
Given the burden of disease amongst the elderly in 2017 including many deaths, the Government has prioritised access to targeted vaccines for the elderly in 2018. I had the pleasure of announcing with the Prime Minister, the Hon Malcom Turnbull MP, on 18 February 2018 that the new vaccines will be made available specifically for those aged 65 years and older through the NIP from April this year.
Under the National Health ACT 1953, the Government cannot consider funding a vaccine for a specific cohort on the NIP unless it has first been recommended by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). To date, PBAC has not recommended expanding the coverage of influenza vaccines to other groups not already covered under the NIP.
The Government continues to monitor influenza burden and outcomes across the community. This includes commissioning modelling to better understand the burden of seasonal influenza and the impact of vaccination programs. The outcomes from this modelling will be used to inform influenza vaccination policy and programs into the future.
Thank you for writing on this important matter. Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Health, The Hon Greg Hunt MP
Asylum Seekers
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your correspondence of 26 March 2018 enclosing Petition EN0456, concerning the Australian Government's regional processing arrangements.
As a party to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (the Refugee Convention) and its 1967 Protocol, Australia takes its international obligations seriously. Australia is committed to providing protection to refugees consistent with the obligations set out in the Refugee Convention and other relevant international treaties to which Australia is a party.
With the establishment of Operation Sovereign Borders on 18 September 2013, the Government has focused on disrupting and deterring people smugglers, detecting and intercepting illegal maritime arrivals, and supporting regional processing and resettlement of refugees, as well as returns of those transferees not found to be owed protection. Anyone who comes to Australia illegally by boat will be subject to regional processing arrangements and will not be eligible for permanent residency in Australia.
The Australian Government's Operation Sovereign Borders policies are designed to safeguard vulnerable people from exploitation by people smugglers, prevent the loss of life at sea and restore the integrity of Australia's borders. Restoration of Australia's border integrity has enabled the Government to increase the annual refugee intake. As a result, the Humanitarian Programme has increased from 13,750 in 2016-17 to 16,250 in 2017-18 and will reach 18,750 in 2018-19. The 2018-19 Programme will represent the largest offshore humanitarian intake in more than 30 years. Focusing on persecuted minorities, Australia has also welcomed 12,000 refugees from the Syrian conflict zone. The ongoing success of these strong border control policies has enabled the closure of 17 immigration detention facilities.
The Governments of Nauru and PNG are responsible for assessment of protection claims for people transferred to those countries under the regional processing arrangements.
The Nauru Regional Processing Centre (RPC) operates as an open centre. RPC residents can move freely into and out of the centre through approved means. Transport services are provided to assist with access to community facilities.
Persons determined by Nauru to be refugees may remain in Nauru for up to 20 years, settle in Cambodia, express an interest in United States (US) resettlement, or move to a country they have the right to reside in.
The Government of PNG closed the Manus RPC on 31 October 2017. Persons determined by PNG to be refugees may settle in PNG, express an interest in resettlement, volunteer to move to Nauru to await third country resettlement, or move to a country they have the right to reside in.
Resettlement of refugees from Nauru and PNG in the US commenced in September 2017 and continues in 2018. This arrangement demonstrates the strength of Australia's relationship with the US, and our shared commitment to working together on a range of global refugee and humanitarian issues.
US authorities continue to apply their own rigorous assessment and vetting processes to decide which refugees are eligible for resettlement in the US, and where and when this will take place.
Non-refugees should return home and can access assistance to do so.
Australia assists PNG, Nauru and Cambodia to provide refugees with settlement support to assist with integration into the local community. Services are delivered through a needs-based case management model and may include cultural and language orientation, employment, education and health linking, income support and accommodation assistance. Settlement services focus on building independence and self-sufficiency.
The Australian Parliament has scrutinised Nauru regional processing operations on a number of occasions and continues to do so. A number of independent scrutiny organisations, including the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), conduct regular monitoring visits of the Nauru RPC with the permission of the Government of Nauru. Independent scrutiny organisations may visit PNG with the permission of the Government of PNG. Transferees are able to communicate with scrutiny bodies, such as the Ombudsman, the ICRC and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, to raise any concerns they may have.
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention. Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, The Hon Peter Dutton MP
Prayers
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your correspondence of 26 March 2018, requesting a response to petition EN0484 relating to retaining the current practice of reading the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of each sitting.
The requirement for a prayer to commence proceedings, and the exact form of the words used, are set out in standing order 38. As you know, responsibility for the operations of the House ultimately rests with the Members themselves, and any changes to the standing orders can only be approved with the support of a majority of Members.
The issue of commencement with prayers has been examined on a number of occasions and changes have not been supported, perhaps reflecting the tendency of Parliaments to be traditional institutions.
The form of prayers has not changed since 1901 except for some additional words that were introduced in 1918 for the duration of the war. In 2010 the House agreed to add an acknowledgement of country at the start of sitting days, but did not change the form of the prayer.
I trust this information will be of assistance to you. Yours sincerely
from the Speaker of the House of Representatives, The Hon Tony Smith MP
Health Care
Dear Chair
I refer to your letter arch 2018 concerning Petition number: EN0491 - Chronic
Inflammatory Response Syndrome (CIRS).
I am sympathetic to the plight of the individual initiating this petition, given the difficulties associated with their condition. From recent meetings with Painaustralia, I am aware that chronic pain carries considerable complexities, particularly with regard to early identification and accurate diagnosis of particular pain conditions, such as CIRS.
Painaustralia is seeking greater awareness of chronic pain and enhanced mechanisms for diagnosing, treating and managing pain, as it presents generally, and for specific conditions like CIRS. In line with this, the organisation has been advocating for revisions to the National Pain Strategy to incorporate new understandings, evidence and priority processes for addressing chronic pain. The development of a revised National Pain Strategy is currently being considered by all jurisdictions through the Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council (AHMAC) process.
Accordingly, I think it would be more appropriate for revised approaches to chronic pain and pain management be considered through revisions to the National Pain Strategy, rather than through the establishment of a House of Representatives Committee inquiry.
Thank you for writing on this matter. Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Health, The Hon Greg Hunt MP
Gambling
Betting on the Outcome of a Lottery Draw
Thank you for your letters of 12 February 2018, 26 February 2018 and 26 March 2018 about petitions requesting for the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (1GA) to be amended to prohibit the betting on the outcome of a lottery draw (`lottery betting').
Eleven petitions were received in the first referral dated 12 February 2018 (PN0279, PN0284-0286, PN0289-PN0292, PN0294, PN0299 and PN0302), three petitions in a second referral dated 26 February 2018 (PN0222, PN0230 and PN0303), and four petitions in a third referral dated 26 March 2018 (PN0304-PN0306 and PN0324).
I am pleased to advise you that the Turnbull Government is taking strong action to address the many concerns raised with us about the provision of lottery betting services by Lottoland and other online corporate bookmakers licensed in Australia.
As lottery betting services are licensed and regulated by the Northern Territory Government, I wrote to the Northern Territory minister with portfolio responsibility for gambling seeking a response to the concerns that have been raised in relation to these services.
In response, the Northern Territory Government determined that betting on the outcome of Australian-based lotteries should not be permitted and prohibited its licensed operators including Lottoland from providing these services. This was a positive step, but the Turnbull Government believes it does not go far enough.
On 28 March 2018, the Turnbull Government introduced the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Lottery Betting) Bill 2018 into the House of Representatives. This Bill will legislate a nationwide prohibition against all online lottery and keno betting services, ensuring a nationally consistent approach to this issue.
We have taken this action in recognition of the importance of traditional official lottery and keno services to thousands of small businesses across Australia including newsagents, pharmacies, stand-alone lottery agents, pubs, RSLs and community clubs. Official lotteries also provide an important revenue stream to state and territory governments to support the provision of public services and infrastructure.
Many Australians enjoy lotteries and keno as a recreational activity, and the Government is committed to ensuring online gambling takes place under a robust legislative framework with strong consumer protections within the boundaries of community standards.
Thank you for bringin these petitions to my attention. I trust this information will be of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts, Senator the Hon Mitch Fifield
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
Dear Chair
I refer to a letter from Mr Ross Vasta, former Chair of Standing Committee on Petitions, dated 23 November, seeking support for an application to the then Minister for Health requesting the exercise of the discretionary power under the National Health Act 1953 (the Act) for approval for the supply of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) medicines at premises in Fletcher, NSW (Petition Number PN0030).
I regret the delay in responding.
I can confirm that, following consideration of this request, on 13 December 2016, the supply of PBS medicines at Shop 11, Fletcher Village, 221 Minmi Road, Fletcher, NSW, was approved. My Department advised the applicant pharmacist of that decision in a letter dated 15 December 2016.
Thank you for following up on this petition. Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Health, The Hon Greg Hunt MP
Health
Dear Mrs Wicks
I refer to your letter 'tember 2017 concerning Petition PN0087 regarding Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficie c TD) and fast tracking of funding arrangements for AATD therapies. I apologise for the delay in my response.
I note the request in the petition relates to previous petitions PN0086 and EN0364, also regarding AATD, to which I responded on 6 November 2017 and 10 January 2018 respectively.
As outlined in my previous correspondence, the National Blood Authority has received applications under Schedule 4 of the National Blood Agreement for two Alpha 1 proteinase inhibitor products for consideration for funding under the national blood arrangements. In December 2017, the Jurisdictional Blood Committee (JBC) agreed to progress these applications through the Commonwealth's Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) health technology assessment (HTA) process for an assessment of the safety, clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of these therapies. The MSAC process is a staged and structured process which takes approximately 12 months to complete. The assessment process has commenced with targeted consultations and the development of the assessment protocol by a HTA group.
Once MSAC has completed its assessment, the evaluation process requires further consideration by the JBC, with submission to the Council of Australian Governments Health Council for decision. Based on the timing for consideration of previous submissions, the total timeframe for the evaluation and approval processes may take approximately 18 months.
I note the request to provide Act of Grace Payments as an interim measure to fund treatments for AATD while the assessment process is underway. The Finance Minister may approve Act of Grace Payments under Section 65 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, which allows the Finance Minister to make payments that would not otherwise be authorised by law. Act of Grace Payments are discretionary and may be made by the Finance Minister or delegate when it is considered appropriate to do so because of special circumstances.
Any individual, company or other organisation can apply for an Act of Grace Payment, either for themselves or for an authorised third party. Further information about Act of Grace Payments, including how to apply, can be found on the Australian Government Department of Finance website: www.finance.gov.au/resource-management/discretionary-financial-assistance/act-of-grace-mechanism/.
Thank you for writing on this matter. Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Health, The Hon Greg Hunt MP
Online Safety
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 5 December 2017 about petition PN0154 where petitioners have requested for the minimum age requirements on social media platforms to be raised from 13+ years of age to 15+.
Australian children are immersing themselves in the online world through social networking sites, online games, smartphones and tablets. However, it is an unfortunate consequence that this can occasionally leave them vulnerable to harmful content or behaviours online.
I note the concerns of petitioners about the physical and mental effects of social media use in children under the age of 15. Major social media providers are private companies, many of which are based in the United States of America. Decisions about who these providers allow to use their services are matters for these providers to decide. The Government does not seek to intervene in the business decisions that private companies make.
All of us have a part to play in ensuring Australian children and young people are as safe as possible from online risks. The Government has a range of measures in place to help protect children online and to support parents and teachers in managing the online activities of children.
Office of the eSafety Commissioner
The Office of the eSafety Commissioner (Commissioner) helps to protect Australian children from cyberbullying harm and takes a national leadership role in online safety for children in particular. One of the key functions of the Commissioner is to administer a complaints system, backed by legislation that will quickly remove material that is harmful to a child from social media sites. The Commissioner also accredits and evaluates online safety educational programs and administers the Online Content Scheme.
The Commissioner's complaints system is for Australian children who experience serious cyberbullying online. In order to lodge a complaint with the Commissioner, a complaint must first be made to the relevant social media service under its complaints scheme. If the service does not remove the material within 48 hours a complaint can then be made to the Commissioner.
Each complaint received by the Commissioner is assessed on a case-by-case basis. The Commissioner aims to remove serious cyberbullying material as quickly as possible, so once a complaint has been assessed, the Commissioner can request that a social media service remove the material within 48 hours.
Complaints about cyberbullying material targeted at an Australian child may be lodged by completing the online form at www.esafety.gov.aukomplaints-and-reporting/cyberbullying-complaints.Additionally, there are a number of online safety initiatives currently available to Australian children to help them deal with matters such as harmful content and cyberbullying.
The Commissioner's website www.esafety.gov.au is a useful resource providing online safety advice on minimising risk, including a link to an online helpline and general tips to keep children safe using social media, search engines and online games. The Commissioner also provides classroom resources and funds certified online safety programs in schools.
The ThinkUKnow website (www.thinkUknow.org.au),sponsored in part by the Australian Federal Police, offers help and advice, including information relating to the posting of offensive and explicit material online.
The Australian Cybercrime Online Reporting Network (ACORN) is a national policing initiative of the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments. ACORN allows the public to securely report instances of cybercrime. The ACORN provides information on how to recognise and avoid common forms of cybercrime, as well as offering advice to those who have fallen victim. The ACORN site is at www.acorn.gov.au.
The Online Content Scheme regulates prohibited and potentially prohibited online content in Australia based on the National Classification Scheme. Information about what constitutes prohibited content and potentially prohibited content, and how to lodge a complaint is available at www.esafety.gov.aukomplaints-and-reporting/offensive-and-illegal-content-complaints.
Minimum age requirements for social media registration
In regards to the petitioners' suggestion of minimum age requirements to use social media sites, most major social media services and apps require users to be 13 years old to join. This is generally to comply with international privacy laws which prohibit organisations from collecting private data from children below a specific age. For example, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act 1998 is a United States law which imposes certain requirements on operators of websites or online services directed to children under 13 years of age.
In Australia, the Privacy Act 1988 (Privacy Act) is the responsibility of the Attorney-General. While the Privacy Act does not include separate provisions for the handling of a child's information, it might be the case that an individual's age may be relevant to whether or not they have consented to the collection, use or disclosure of their personal information. The Privacy Act does not specify an age after which individuals can make their own privacy decisions. Constituents can also contact the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner for more information on Australian privacy laws.
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts, Senator the Hon Mitch Fifield
Infrastructure
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 6 February 2018 to the Hon Barnaby Joyce MP, former minister for Infrastructure and Transport regarding Petition Number PN0201 on the Inland Rail corridor between the Queensland border and Gowrie.
In November 2016, the Hon Darren Chester MP, former Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, commissioned a like-for-like comparison of four Inland Rail corridor options between Yelarbon and Gowrie. A Project Reference Group (PRG) was formed to provide local community input to the review of the four alignment options.
It was outside of the scope of the PRG to examine options other than four corridors under review. These corridors were selected following years of studies by the Australian Rail Track Corporation as to viable corridors. The PRG met its Terms of Reference as members:
engaged in constructive discussion
facilitated information sharing with the wider community
saw a like-for-like review process
maintained confidentiality where required
reviewed and provided feedback on technical data, and provided information to the technical consultants
delivered a final report to the Minister through the Chair of the PRG
Following the like-for-like review process, the Australian Government chose to progress the study corridor via Brookstead, Pittsworth and the west Toowoomba industrial precinct. This corridor offers the best balance of environmental, community and economic factors, It:
has fewer community and property impacts than the Base Case Modified and Warwick options
provides the fastest transit time of the four options
is the least expensive of the alternative options to the Base Case Modified corridor
offers the strategic benefit of being located near the west Toowoomba industrial precinct, allowing Inland Rail to support and capitalise on growth in Toowoomba and the Darling Downs region
As part of the like-for-like review, all corridor options were costed using the same assumptions and to the same contingency level. Now that the study corridor has been identified, farther studies will be undertaken to locate the exact track alignment and develop appropriate design solutions. As these studies progress, costings will become more accurate. This process of refinement is normal for infrastructure projects.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, my office can be contacted at (02) 6277 7820. Thank you again for raising this matter with me. Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, The Hon Michael McCormack MP
Defence Sites
Dear Chair
Thank you for your correspondence dated 7 December 2017 regarding Petition PN0212 from the House of Representatives about the proposed sale of Bulimba Barracks in Queensland. I apologise for the delayed response.
Petition number PN0212 requests that "...any valuation of the site be undertaken having regard to the Barracks master plan which has been adopted through the Statutory Planning Scheme", and "...that any sale terms take into account the community's best interest".
The Department of Defence notes that Brisbane City Council's (BCC) Bulimba District Neighbourhood Plan for Bulimba Barracks was adopted by the Queensland State Government on 19 May 2017 and reflects the 2016 Bulimba Barracks Master Plan.
Defence will be undertaking an updated independent market valuation of the site prior to sale, and will provide its valuer with all relevant due diligence information to assist the completion of the market valuation, including the Brisbane City Council's Neighbourhood Plan for Bulimba Barracks.
The future owner of the site will be required to comply with State and local Government planning and development regulations, through which the Queensland Government and Brisbane City Council enforce adherence to the Bulimba District Neighbourhood Plan.
I trust this information is of assistance to you.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Defence, Senator the Hon Marise Payne
Penalty Rates
This letter is in response to your letter of 6 February 2018 concerning petition PN0213 regarding penalty rates.
The Australian Government's position on penalty rates has always been clear—setting pay and conditions of awards is the job of the independent Fair Work Commission. This is core business for the Commission.
In making its decision to reduce penalty rates for some workers in the hospitality and retail sectors, the Commission considered evidence over a two-year period. The Commission received almost 6,000 submissions, heard evidence from 143 witnesses and held 39 days of hearings. in a unanimous judgement, a five member Full Federal Court found that the Commission had properly exercised its jurisdiction in the penalty rates case.
As you note, many large businesses already pay lower rates on Sundays. This is because of enterprise agreements negotiated with unions. For example, the SDA National (Union for Workers in Retail) and the Australian Workers' Union have negotiated agreements with Coles, Woolworths, Big W, KFC and McDonalds that traded away Sunday penalty rates for their members.
The decision of the Fair Work Commission helps level the playing field for small businesses on Sundays. The Commission found many family business owners currently work on Sundays unpaid, but would rather employ staff. Other businesses have indicated that adjusting penalty rates would enable them to open on Sundays, providing more work and extra services.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Small and Family Business, The Workplace and Deregulation, The Hon Craig Laundy MP
Bulimba Barracks
Thank you for your correspondence dated 7 December 2017 regarding Petition PN0227 from the House of Representatives about the proposed sale of Bulimba Barracks in Queensland. I apologise for the delayed response.
Petition number PN0227 requests that 10 percent of proceeds from the sale of site be allocated to upgrade local community infrastructure.
The Department of Defence is not permitted to direct the proceeds of Commonwealth land sales to the local community. Budget Process Operational Rules provide that the proceeds from the sale of surplus Defence properties are reinvested in support of Defence capability.
The future owner of the site will be required to comply with local and State Government planning and development regulations, including contributing to improving local infrastructure through the Brisbane Adopted Charges Resolution scheme. Current baseline contributions range between $20,000 -$28,000 per dwelling. If the successful purchaser was to develop the site in accordance with the Brisbane City Council Master Plan, the Council would likely receive between $17 million and $24 million to support local infrastructure. Additional charges may be incurred based on the proposed development. Any potential future development will assess the amount of dedicated open space against the relevant residential density code and recommendations made within the Brisbane City Council's Masterplan.
Future development of the site in accordance with the Bulimba District Neighbourhood Plan will provide opportunities for community amenity that do not presently exist while the site is in Commonwealth ownership as a surplus Defence site.
I trust this information is of assistance to you. Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Defence, Senator the Hon Marise Payne
Australia Post
Thank you for your letter of 6 February 2018 seeking my response to petition PN0274 presented in the House of Representatives, regarding a request from the residents of Berkshire Park, New South Wales, to make Llandilo Post Office their local post office.
Australia Post has advised that, as of 12 March 2018, articles requiring collection by Berkshire Park residents are now delivered to the Llandilo Licensed Post Office and residents were notified of this change in a letter sent on 21 February 2018. This makes Llandilo Licensed Post Office the local post office for Berkshire Park residents as they are now able to access all their postal needs in one location.
I understand that the office of the Federal Member for Lindsay, Ms Emma Husar MP, has also raised this matter with Australia Post and has been updated on the new arrangements.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts, Senator the Hon Mitch Fifield
Marriage
Thank you for your letter of 19 February 2018 regarding petition number PN0276, relating to amendments to the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) to enable same-sex marriage.
Petition PN0276, which was presented on 12 February 2018, sought amendments to the Marriage Act so that marriages may be solemnised, and overseas marriages recognised, regardless of the sex of the parties.
I am pleased to advise the Committee that the amendments to the Marriage Act requested by the petitioners have been enacted.
On 7 December 2017, the Australian Parliament passed the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017 (the Marriage Amendment Act) to provide for marriage equality in Australia. The right to marry in Australia is no longer determined by sex or gender. Marriage is now defined, under the Marriage Act, as the `union of two people to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life'.
The Marriage Amendment Act also amended the Marriage Act to enable same-sex marriages solemnised under the law of a foreign country to be recognised as valid in Australia.
Yours sincerely
from the Attorney-General, The Hon Christian Porter MP
Adani Carmichael Coalmine
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter concerning petition PN0293, presented to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Petitions regarding Adani's Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail project in the Galilee Basin and Australia's energy policies.
The Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project was approved on 14 October 2015, in accordance with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The approval is subject to conditions that take into account issues raised by the community and require the company to meet appropriate environmental standards.
The Carmichael Coal Mine is situated in outback Queensland, approximately 300 kilometres west of the Great Bather Reef. The mine will not have any direct impacts on the reef. The emissions arising from the use of coal from this and other mines are addressed by national and international measures to deal with climate change more broadly. The complex, global nature of emissions is best addressed with such measures, rather than by trying to connect climate change impacts to individual mining projects.
Protecting precious water resources from impacts of large coal mines is a priority of the Australian Government (the Government). The Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project approval includes conditions for the protection of water, including a requirement for Adani to offset the predicted annual water take of the mine. This will be achieved by reducing extraction from the Great Artesian Basin by 3,650 megalitres per year, to be implemented over the first five years after coal mining commences.
Adani had expressed interest in accessing the $5 billion Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF) to support its North Galilee Basin Railway proposal. On 12 December 2017, the NAIF received formal notification from the Queensland Government that financial assistance should not be provided to Adani's North Galilee Basin Rail Project. As a consequence, in accordance with s13(4) of the NAIF Investment Mandate, the NAIF will not be making an investment decision to provide financial assistance to that project.
The Government is firmly committed to protecting the Great Barrier Reef. The Government is doing this through sound policy, substantial direct investment and world class marine park management. The Australian and Queensland governments will invest more than $2 billion over a decade under the Reef 2050 Plan.
The Government is also committed to supporting the transition to a lower emissions economy, while at the same time, providing sustainable, secure and affordable energy to industry and households. The Renewable Energy Target (RET) is a government scheme designed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in the electricity sector by encouraging additional generation of electricity from renewable sources, and forms an important part of the Government's plan for meeting our 2020 and 2030 emission reduction commitments. It is expected to lift the share of renewables to around 23.5 per cent of Australia's electricity generation by 2020.
The Government's strong record on renewable energy has led to an unprecedented wave of investment in renewable energy currently underway, supported by the RET. 2017 was Australia's biggest year ever for new build renewable projects coming online. Clean energy investment was Australia's highest on record at Mll billion, which placed Australia 7th of all countries in the world. There was more rooftop solar power installed across Australia than in the history of the renewable energy industry. Australia has the world's highest rate of solar panels, with one in five Australian households now having solar panels on their roof.
The Government is also investing in the renewable energy technologies and infrastructure of the future. Funding through the Australian Renewable Energy Agency is supporting the CSIRO and major Australian universities to undertake twenty solar research and development projects to reduce costs, increase efficiency and create new breakthroughs. Investments in pumped hydro energy storage projects in Queensland, South Australia and Snowy Hydro 2.0, which will be the biggest battery in the Southern Hemisphere, will help to make wind and solar power more reliable.
The Government has accepted the recommendation of the independent, expert Energy Security Board for a new National Energy Guarantee (NEG) to deliver more affordable and reliable electricity, while meeting our international commitments. Under the NEG, the transition towards renewable energy sources will continue but, importantly, electricity retailers will need to also have enough dispatchable electricity generation capacity available, and will include energy from ready-to-use sources such as coal, gas, pumped hydro and batteries. This is essential to ensure the grid can supply power to households and businesses at all times of the day and night.
Finally, the coal industry is very important to Australia. It is Australia's second largest export earner, employing thousands of people. It also makes significant contributions to the economy through wages, jobs, investment, taxes and royalties, and underpins a strong equipment and services sector. Australia is one of the world's leading suppliers of high quality coal. Due to its higher energy content, Australian coal is relatively less harmful to the environment, compared to that from our competitors. The environmental criteria applied to Australia's coal mining industry are as high as anywhere in the world.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this petition.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Environment and Energy, The Hon Josh Frydenberg MP
Australian Bureau of Statistics
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your correspondence of 14 February about the petition requesting that the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) redefine Religion.
As outlined in the ABS Australian Standard Classification of Religious Groups (ASCRG), a precise definition of the concept of religion is difficult because of the intangible and wide-ranging nature of the topic. However, generally a religion is regarded as a set of beliefs and practices, usually involving acknowledgment of a divine or higher being or power, by which people order the conduct of their lives both practically and in a moral sense.
This approach to defining religion in terms of encompassing a mixture of beliefs, practices, and a supernatural being giving form and meaning to existence, was used by the High Court of Australia in 1983 in the case of Church of the New Faith v Commissioner for Pay-roll Tax (Vic) 154 CLR 120, 136.
As part of that ruling, it was stated: For the purposes of the law, the criteria of religion are twofold: first, belief in a Supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and second, the acceptance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief though canons of conduct which offend against the ordinary laws are outside the area of any immunity, privilege or right conferred on the grounds of religion.
The scope of the ASCRG is all religions and subsets of religions as defined above. I trust this information will be of assistance to you.
Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer, The Hon Michael Sukkar MP
Australian Bureau of Statistics
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your correspondence of 14 February about the petition requesting that the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) disendorse Islam as a religion in the Australian Standard Classification of Religious Groups (ASCRG).
As outlined in the ABS ASCRG, a precise definition of the concept of religion is difficult because of the intangible and wide-ranging nature of the topic. However, generally a religion is regarded as a set of beliefs and practices, usually involving acknowledgment of a divine or higher being or power, by which people order the conduct of their lives both practically and in a moral sense.
This approach to defining religion in terms of a mixture of beliefs, practices, and a supernatural
being giving form and meaning to existence, was used by the High Court of Australia in 1983 in the case of Church of the New Faith v Commissioner for Pay-roll Tax (Vic) 154 CLR 120, 136.
As part of that ruling, it was stated: For the purposes of the law, the criteria of religion are twofold: first, belief in a Supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and second the acceptance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief though canons of conduct which offend against the ordinary laws are outside the area of any immunity, privilege or right conferred on the grounds of religion.
The scope of the ASCRG is all religions and subsets of religions as defined above.
I trust this information will be of assistance to you.
Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer, The Hon Michael Sukkar MP
Australian Army
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter of 13 February 2017 about petition number EN0079 and the request to make Australia a totally zero-violence country and ban the Australian Army in everything. I apologise for the delay in responding.
I appreciate you bringing the petition to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Defence, Senator the Hon Marise Payne
Work Expenses
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter of 1 March 2017, regarding a petition (EN0096) presented to the House of Representatives.
Parliamentarians and their employees are eligible to claim work expenses under a framework of legislation, legislative instruments and a series of procedural rules, guidelines, determinations, administrative procedures and authorisations made by successive responsible Ministers. This includes some former parliamentarians, in particular former Prime Ministers, who are provided with an office and staff at Commonwealth expense following the expiry of their term, enabling them to perform an ongoing and important role within the Australian community.
In recent months, there has been ongoing community debate about parliamentarians' work expenses. Australians are entitled to expect that parliamentarians spend taxpayers' money wisely, appropriately and accountably.
On 22 February 2017, The Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Act 2017 commenced, ceasing Life Gold Pass travel for all Life Gold Pass holders, other than retired former Prime Ministers and their spouses or de facto partners.
In addition to ceasing Life Gold Pass travel for a significant majority of Life Gold Pass holders, changes have been made to put further limits on travel by retired Prime Ministers from 40 to 30 domestic return flights per year, and from 40 to 20 domestic return trips per year for their spouse or de facto partner. Travel may only be undertaken for the public benefit.
The previous defined benefit parliamentary pension scheme closed more than a decade ago. Any Senator or Member first elected since, or in, October 2004 is unable to access the previous parliamentary pension scheme and is not entitled to a pension upon retirement or leaving Parliament.
85 per cent of current Federal Parliamentarians are members of the new superannuation scheme that subsequently took effect, under which superannuation benefits provided to parliamentarians are similar to those that apply to many members of the community.
These arrangements provide for the payment of monthly employer superannuation contributions during a parliamentarian's term of office. No defined benefit pension is payable to them when they leave Parliament.
Over time, as the small number of MPs first elected prior to October 2004 decreases, the number of beneficiaries under the old pension scheme will be reduced to zero.
I trust that this information will be of assistance in your consideration of this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Special Minister of State, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet, Senator the HonScott Ryan
Entitlements System
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter of 20 March 2017, regarding petition number EN0110 that was recently presented in the House of Representatives.
The recommendations of the 2016 review into An Independent Parliamentary Entitlements System, which is available at https://www.finance.gov.au/publications/parliamentaryentitlements-review/, address many of the issues raised in this petition, including:
establishing a new legislative framework for an improved system of parliamentary work expenses
the purpose of activities undertaken using public resources
family travel
travel provided to former parliamentarians; and
the use of charter transport.
The Government has indicated its in principle support for all of the review recommendations and is working with the Remuneration Tribunal and a number of Government agencies to implement the review's recommendations.
Our progress is evident from the recent passage of the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017, which implements the recommendation of the review to replace the legislative framework for parliamentarians' work expenses and provide a legislated definition of parliamentary business. In addition, it establishes new value-for-money principles around parliamentarian's expenditure and a 'dominant purpose test' for all travel undertaken by parliamentarians.
You may be aware that The Statement of Ministerial Standards, requires Ministers to undertake that, for an eighteen month period after ceasing to be a Minister, they will not lobby, advocate or have business meetings with members of the government, parliament, public service or defence force on any matters on which they have had official dealings as Minister in their last eighteen months in office. Ministers are also required to undertake that, on leaving office, they will not take personal advantage of information to which they have had access as a Minister, where that information is not generally available to the public.
I trust that this information will be of assistance in your consideration of this petition.
Yours sincerely
from the Special Minister of State, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet, Senator the Hon Scott Ryan
Emissions Reduction
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter regarding petition number EN0127.
The Australian Government (the Government) is contributing to global efforts to reduce emissions. Australia has a strong track record of meeting its international emissions reduction commitments. We beat our first Kyoto target by 128 million tonnes, and are now on track to meet and beat our 2020 target of five per cent below 2000 levels, by 224 million tonnes.
As part of the Paris Agreement, Australia has committed to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. This will see Australia's emissions per person halve and the emissions intensity of our economy reduce by two-thirds. These reductions are among the largest of any major economy. The Government ratified the Paris Agreement on 10 November 2016 — the earliest opportunity in the new Parliament.
The Government's policies are working. The $2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund is successfully supporting businesses, communities, landholders and Indigenous Australians to reduce emissions. It is supporting projects such as improving energy efficiency, reducing high intensity bushfires using traditional fire management and storing carbon in forests and soils. So far, it has secured 189 million tonnes of emissions reduction at a price of only $11.83 per tonne. This is the largest ever emissions reduction commitment by Australian businesses and landholders.
The Government's Renewable Energy Target seeks to ensure 23.5 per cent of Australia's electricity comes from renewable sources by 2020. This will see a doubling of large scale renewables from now to 2020. The Government is also helping households install rooftop solar panels and solar hot water systems through rebates under the Renewable Energy Target. More than 2.5 million households and businesses have solar systems. At 15 per cent, Australia has the world's highest penetration rate of solar PV on household roofs — over double the next highest.
The Government has already committed $1.2 billion to over 270 renewable energy projects through the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA), with an additional $800 million to be provided over the next five years. ARENA is supporting the renewable energy industry to innovate and roll out projects. For example, in September 2016 ARENA announced $92 million to support the construction of 12 large scale solar projects across Australia, providing enough energy to power 150,000 average Australian homes and tripling the amount of energy produced from large scale solar.
In 2015, the Government committed to review its climate change policies to ensure our policies remain effective in meeting our 2030 emissions reduction target. The review is currently underway and the Department of the Environment and Energy has consulted with a range of businesses, non-government organisations and Indigenous organisations.
The public consultation period for the review received more than 350 submissions from across these groups. A recurring theme in submissions included recognition of the benefits from, and to, Indigenous Australians participating in emissions reduction projects. These views will be
considered by Government as part of the review.
Savanna fire management activities through the Emissions Reduction Fund are a good example of engaging Indigenous knowledge to inform practical and effective policy. The savanna fire management method in the Emissions Reduction Fund is founded on traditional fire management practices undertaken by Indigenous Australians. So far, more than 13.8 million tonnes of emission reductions has been secured for this type of activity, at the same time, providing environmental and cultural benefits to Indigenous Australians across northern Australia.
Thank you for writing on this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for the Environment And Energy, The Hon Josh Frydenberg MP
Child Sexual Abuse
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your correspondence concerning a petition to remove the tax exempt status of the Catholic Church in Australia in light of the investigation by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
The objective of the Royal Commission is to investigate where systems have failed to protect children and make recommendations on how to improve laws, policies and practices to prevent and better respond to child sexual abuse in institutions.
The Royal Commission held its last scheduled public hearing from 27-31 March 2017 and will deliver its final report on 15 December 2017. The Royal Commission is independent of government and is responsible for making its own recommendations. While an Interim Report, a Redress and Civil Litigation Report and a Working with Children Checks Report have been published, there have not been any recommendations made by the Royal Commission to date which call for the suspension of tax concessions for religious bodies.
The Government values the contribution of the not-for-profit sector. In recognition of the sector's contribution to society, the Government provides assistance to worthy causes, including through the provision of tax concessions. Without tax concessions, the overall participation level of the not-for-profit sector would be below what is optimal for society. The Government monitors the tax concessions provided to charities and the not-for-profit sector more broadly with a view to ensuring that they deliver the greatest possible benefit for all Australians.
Access to tax concessions generally requires a religious institution to have Australian Business Number registration, registration by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) and, in some circumstances, Australian Taxation Office endorsement.
The ACNC is the independent national regulator of charities and the relevant body that ensures charities are acting in accordance with their obligations. As the charity regulator, the ACNC relies on information from a variety of sources, including the public, to assist in its role and to implement legislation under the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act 2012.
The ACNC takes all concerns raised seriously and investigates where appropriate. However, the secrecy provisions in the ACNC Act prevent the ACNC from providing any further information about how a specific concern has or will be progressed.
If a concern progresses to an investigation the ACNC can use a range of compliance powers, including:
providing educational material or regulatory advice to the charity;
issuing directions, warnings or penalties;
suspending or removing board members; and
revoking a charity's registration or registration as a particular subtype of charity.
If the ACNC takes compliance action against a charity, it will publish this decision at
www.wnc.goiau/compliancedecisions
Kind regards
from the Minister of Finance, Acting Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, Senator the Hon Mathias Cormann
Cannabis
Dear Mr Vasta
I refer to your letter of 22 May 2017 regarding a recent petition presented to the House of Representatives to decriminalise cannabis (petition number EN0153).
The Commonwealth is responsible for the national classification system that controls how medicines and poisons are made available to the public. Substances are classified into Schedules according to the level of regulation required to protect public health and safety.
However, matters regarding the decriminalisation of cannabis are constitutionally the responsibility of the states and territories.
Cannabis and cannabis products for therapeutic use are classified as either Schedule 4 (prescription only) or Schedule 8 (restricted) depending on whether the active ingredient is cannabidiol or tetrahydrocannabinol, respectively.
Non-therapeutic cannabis is classified as Schedule 9 (prohibited) due to the range of harms associated with its use.
The Schedules are published in the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and
Poisons as recommendations to be given effect through state and territory legislation.
Accordingly, the states and territories determine the criminal and civil penalties related to the use, possession, cultivation or trafficking of cannabis within their jurisdictions.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Health, Minister for Sport, The Hon Greg Hunt MP
Body Scan
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter of 22 May 2017 regarding petition EN0158 seeking arrangements to enable passengers to opt-out of a body scan if selected, and undergo an alternative method of security screening.
Under Australia's aviation security legislation, passengers at Australian airports are not able to select the method of screening to be applied, and when presenting at a screening point are taken to consent to all methods of screening other than a frisk search.
As body scanners have significant security benefits, the Australian Government has a no opt-out policy for body scanner screening. Body scanners are the most advanced passenger screening technology available, and are capable of detecting a range of sophisticated threats that other screening technologies cannot. The only alternative that offers an equivalent level of screening to a body scanner is an enhanced full body frisk search. This would involve a thorough frisk of the entire body, including sensitive areas, as well as the possible loosening and/or removing of some clothing. As this is a very intrusive method, the search is not part of Australia's aviation security arrangements. For these reasons, passengers who are randomly selected for body scan cannot choose alternative screening methods.
Persons with medical or physical conditions that prevent them from undertaking a body scan will be offered an alternative screening method suitable to their circumstances. However, it is correct that if a person refuses to undergo a body scan in the absence of such a condition they will be refused clearance and not allowed to pass through the screening point for 24 hours.
The Australian Government understands that some travellers may have concerns regarding the potential health impacts of body scanners. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), the Department of Health and the Therapeutic Goods Administration have advised that there are no known health risks from undergoing a body scan. The body scanners in use at Australian airports use non-ionising radio frequency energy in the millimetre-wave spectrum. The United States of America Transport Security Administration has stated that one body scan emits 10,000 times less radio frequency energy than an average mobile phone call, which is significantly less than the maximum permissible exposure levels for the public set by ARPANSA. The exposure someone receives during a two second millimetre-wave body scan is similar to the exposure received as a result of someone else using their mobile phone several metres away. Body scanners using ionising radiation x-ray technology are not permitted for use in aviation security screening.
Further information on body scanner health and safety, is available at the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development's aviation security website TraveISECURE at:
www.travelsecure.infrastructure.gov.au/passenger-screening/body-scanners.aspx.
Thank you again for taking the time to write to me on this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, The Hon Darren Chester MP
Augusta Highway
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter of 20 June 2017 regarding petition number EN0179 to duplicate the Augusta Highway between Port Wakefield and Port Augusta. I regret the delay in responding.
The Australian Government shares the Civil Contractors Federation's concerns about the importance of quality road infrastructure that meets the needs of communities across Australia. The Australian Government is committed to improving Australia's infrastructure, in particular the safety and productivity of the road network.
As you are aware, all Australian Government funding that is made available to South Australia under the Infrastructure Investment Programme is allocated to specific key projects, as agreed with the South Australian Government. The South Australian Government has not, in recent times, sought Australian Government funding to duplicate the Augusta Highway.
For its part, the Australian Government has committed $3.2 billion over the period 2013-14 to 2020-21 to build land transport infrastructure in South Australia under the Infrastructure Investment Programme. In 2017-18, the Australian Government will provide $929.9 million for projects in South Australia.
This includes $3.1 million in Australian Government funding toward the $3.9 million Augusta Highway upgrade under the Regional Roads Package. The project consists of safety and efficiency improvements, including an overtaking lane between Port Pirie and Port Augusta and Rocky River Bridge widening.
Further development and funding for the Augusta Highway duplication is initially a matter for the South Australian Government to consider. Funding for this project could then be considered in the context of future Budgets with the necessary support of the South Australian Government.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, The Hon Darren Chester MP
Renewable Energy
Dear Mrs Wicks
I refer to your letter concerning the petition presented to the House of Representatives' Standing Committee on Petitions regarding a requirement for household solar panel and battery storage installation (petition number: EN0266).
The Australian Government is committed to the development of renewable energy and supporting the transition to a lower emissions economy, while at the same time, providing sustainable, secure and affordable energy to industry and households.
The Renewable Energy Target (RET) is an Australian Government scheme designed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in the electricity sector by encouraging the additional generation of electricity from renewable sources. The RET is expected to increase the share of renewables to around 23.5 per cent of Australia's electricity use in 2020.
Under the RET scheme, the Government is helping households install rooftop solar panels and solar hot water systems through rebates. To date, more than 2.8 million households and businesses have installed systems under the scheme. Further, Australia has the highest penetration of rooftop solar in the world, with over 17 per cent of Australian households having installed solar panels.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this petition.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for the Environment and Energy, The Hon Josh Frydenberg MP
ANZUS Treaty
Dear Mrs Wicks
Re: Petition Number—EN0329
Thank you for your letter dated 16 October 2017 requesting that the House of Representatives debate the terms of the ANZUS treaty. I apologise for the delay in responding.
I respectfully decline the request. The ANZUS treaty receives strong bipartisan support and is a cornerstone of Australian defence and foreign policy.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne
Asylum Seekers
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your correspondence of 16 October 2017 enclosing Petition EN0346, concerning the Australian Government's asylum seeker policies and the final departure Bridging E visa (BVE) granted to people from regional processing countries.
I appreciate the time you have taken to bring this matter to my attention.
As a party to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (the Refugee Convention) and its 1967 Protocol, Australia takes its international obligations seriously. Australia is committed to providing protection to refugees consistent with the obligations set out in the Refugee Convention and other relevant international treaties to which Australia is a party.
With the establishment of Operation Sovereign Borders on 18 September 2013, the Government has focused on disrupting and deterring people smugglers, detecting and intercepting illegal maritime arrivals (I MAs), and supporting regional processing and resettlement of refugees, as well as returns of those transferees not found to be owed protection. Anyone who comes to Australia illegally by boat will be subject to regional processing arrangements and will not be eligible for permanent residency in Australia.
Restoration of Australia's border integrity has enabled the Government to increase the annual refugee intake. As a result, the Humanitarian Programme has increased from 13,750 in 2016-17 to 16,250 in 2017-18 and will reach 18,750 in 2018-19. The 2018-19 Programme will represent the largest offshore humanitarian intake in more than 30 years. Focusing on persecuted minorities, Australia has also welcomed 12,000 refugees from the Syrian conflict zone. The ongoing success of these strong border control policies has enabled the closure of 17 immigration detention facilities.
Nauru and Papua New Guinea (PNG) are both signatories to the Refugee Convention. The Governments of Nauru and PNG are responsible for assessment of protection claims for people transferred to those countries under the regional processing arrangements.
Persons determined by Nauru to be refugees may remain in Nauru for up to 20 years, settle in Cambodia, express an interest in United States (US) resettlement, or move to a country they have the right to reside in.
Persons determined by PNG to be refugees may settle in PNG, express an interest in resettlement, volunteer to move to Nauru to await third country resettlement, or move to a country they have the right to reside in.
The first group of refugees from Nauru and PNG arrived in the US in late September, marking the first round of decisions under the US resettlement arrangement. This milestone demonstrates the strength of Australia's relationship with the US, and our shared commitment to working together on a range of global refugee and humanitarian issues.
US authorities continue to apply their own rigorous assessment and vetting processes to decide which refugees are eligible for resettlement in the US, and where and when this will take place.
Non-refugees should return home and can access assistance to do so.
Persons requiring medical treatment in Australia are brought here under a provision of the Migration Act 1958 that authorises a transitory person to be brought to Australia for a temporary purpose. Transitory persons must be returned to a regional processing country when they no longer need to be in Australia for the temporary purpose for which they were brought here and when it is reasonably practicable to effect their return. Decisions to return transitory persons to regional processing countries are undertaken on a case-by-case basis, in a considered and compassionate manner.
From August 2017, final departure BVEs are being granted to some transitory persons who are in Australia for a temporary purpose. This enables them to live in the community temporarily until they return to a regional processing country or any country where they have a right of residence. Support through the Status Resolution Support Service will provide up to three weeks of support, including accommodation and links to employment services, to assist transition into the community. The final departure BVE includes work rights and access to Medicare.
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister For Immigration And Border Protection, The Hon Peter Dutton MP
Firearms Control
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 5 December 2017 to the then Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection the Hon Alex Hawke MP, enclosing petition EN0367. Your letter has been referred to me as I am the Minister responsible for the matters raised in this petition, namely the import control of firearms used in the sport of Airsoft.
Firearms control in Australia is a shared responsibility between the Commonwealth, state and territory governments. The overarching framework for firearms control is outlined in the National Firearms Agreement (NFA), which was updated in February 2017. A copy of the NFA is attached for your convenience. The Australian Government is committed to upholding the NFA, including maintaining and enforcing the import restrictions on firearms in the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 (the Regulations).
In general, Airsoft firearms can be imported into Australia with permission from the relevant state or territory police. This is the least restrictive test in the Regulations. At this point in time, the sport of Airsoft is not permitted in any state or territory, and as such, state and territory police are not currently granting permission to import Airsoft firearms.
Fully automatic Airsoft firearms, and those that are substantially the same in appearance as a fully automatic firearm, are subject to stricter import controls and can only be imported with permission from the Department of Home Affairs.
The stricter import controls for Airsoft firearms, which are substantially the same in appearance as fully automatic firearms, recognise the risk these could be used for criminal activities, such as robberies. There is also a risk that police, security officers and members of the public, confronted with such a firearm, will respond accordingly.
This is consistent with the treatment of other less highly controlled firearms classified under the Regulations, including paintball markers, blank fire and deactivated firearms. It is also consistent with the appearance based controls in the NFA.
Amending the Regulations to allow fully automatic Airsoft firearms—and those that are substantially the same in appearance as a fully automatic firearm—to be imported, would still require state and territory police permission to ensure regulation of the sport.
In addition, the Government requires that Airsoft firearms imported into Australia meet safety testing and serial number requirements. Safety testing is important to ensure firearms have effective safety mechanisms which, when engaged, prevent the accidental discharge of the firearm. Serial number requirements ensure firearms can be traced effectively.
As noted, paintball markers can generally be imported with permission from state and territory police unless appearance based controls apply. If the appearance based controls apply, permission from the Department of Home Affairs is required. In this respect, the important controls governing paintball markers are similar to those governing Airsoft firearms. Fully automatic paintball markers can be imported with permission from state and territory police, but this treatment is an exception under Australia's approach to firearms. Notably, paintball markers are also subject to serial number and safety testing requirements.
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Law Enforcement and Cyber Security, The Hon Angus Taylor MP
Infant Formula
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for letter of 5 December 2017 to the Hon. Luke Hartsuyker MP, Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, requesting advice on a petition which asks that sending infant formula via private parcel/courier/shipment from Australia be made illegal. I am responding as the Minister responsible for the matters you raised.
The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources is responsible for the regulation of the export of Australian-made dairy products in accordance with the Export Control Act 1982 and its subordinate legislation. All shipments of Australian-made infant formula exported in volumes of greater than ten kilograms per individual consignment must meet strict manufacturing and export requirements, and must be issued with a permit by my department prior to export. Export of volumes less than 10 kilograms are not regulated.
Many popular infant formula brands for sale in Australia such as A2, Karricare and Aptimal, which are currently being purchased off the shelf and subsequently exported, are not Australian-made and therefore fall outside the remit of the department.
While the department is not responsible for regulating the export of products not manufactured in Australia, officers have worked closely with the larger supermarket chains, the Infant Nutritional Council of Australia, Dairy Australia and local manufacturers, to ensure there remains sufficient supply of infant formula on the local market for Australian parents.
The Coalition Government believes the current regulatory settings are suitable to control the volume of legally exported Australian made infant formula. However, industry and key stakeholder views will be sought on the appropriateness of the current regulatory settings as part of the improvements to agricultural export legislation which are currently being developed. Further information about this process can be found at www.agriculture.gov.au/market-access-trade/export-regulation-review.
The issue of infant formula availability and suitable controls over the export of Australian made dairy products is a challenging issue. I believe both industry and the government share a common goal of providing a safe and high quality product for our domestic and international markets.
I am advised that supermarkets continue to work with their suppliers regarding stock levels and are enforcing limits on individual purchases. Several companies have also made their products available online to ensure supply.
2
Thank you for bringing this petition to the government's attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, The Hon David Littleproud MP
Medicare Benefits Schedule
Dear Mrs Wicks
I refer to your correspence of 5 December 2017 regarding petition EN0382. The petition concerns the cost and treatment available for patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS). I regret the delay in responding.
I am sympathetic to suffers of MUPS, who can suffer significant distress and disability in the assessment and management of their condition.
Medicare is the Australian Government funded universal health insurance scheme. It was introduced in 1984 to provide Australians with high-quality and accessible health care. The Medicare program includes free treatment as a public hospital patient and subsidised medical services through the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS).
The MBS covers more than 5,700 services across general practice, specialist services, allied health, pathology and diagnostic imaging. The cost of the service to the patient, if any, will depend on the doctor's individual billing arrangement. In 2016-17 almost 8 in 10 MBS services were bulk billed at no cost to the patient.
There are a number of items listed on the MBS which are available for sufferers of MUPs to access including general consultation items, health assessment and Chronic Disease Management (CDM) items.
The CDM items enable GPs to plan and coordinate the health care of patients with chronic or terminal medical conditions. GPs are able to use Medicare items for GP-managed care planning or team-assisted care planning, depending on the health needs of their patients. Eligible patients can be referred for up to five Medicare-eligible allied health services each calendar year.
It is likely that MUPS patients receive a significant Government contribution to the cost of their assessment and treatment through Medicare. However, some patients may have out-of-pocket costs if the doctor chooses to charge their own fee for a service under the MBS.
The Government provides protection for patients with high out-of-pocket costs through a number of Medicare safety nets. The most significant is the Extended Medicare Safety Net (EMSN) which provides an increase in benefits once an annual threshold of out-of-pocket costs for Medicare funded out-of-hospital services has been reached. From 1 January 2018, the threshold for concessional individuals and families is $668.10 and the threshold for all other individuals and families is $2,093.30.
Once the relevant threshold has been met, Medicare will pay for 80% of any further out-of-pocket costs for Medicare eligible out-of-hospital services for the remainder of the
calendar year, except for services where an upper limit or `EMSN benefit cap' applies.
These rules apply to every person eligible for Medicare, consistent with the fundamental principle of equality under a universal health insurance system.
You have also requested changes to the clinical management of patients with MUPS. While the appropriateness of a medical service is ultimately a matter of the treating doctor, the Government has established the MBS Review Taskforce to improve health outcomes for patients. The Taskforce is reviewing the 5,700 services listed on the MBS to ensure publicly subsidised medical services are supported by contemporary clinical evidence.
The Taskforce has established a General Practice and Primary Care Clinical Committee to review the existing items for general practice. I would encourage you to monitor the progress of the Clinical Committee and make a submission during the public consultation process. More information about the Taskforce is available on my Department's website at www.health.gov.au/healthiennedicare.
Thank you for raising this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Health, The Hon Greg Hunt MP
Insurance
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your correspondence originally directed to the Treasurer concerning petition number EN0389, on the insurance premiums in Northern Australia. Your correspondence has been referred to me as I have responsibility for the matter.
The Northern Australia Insurance Premiums Taskforce (the Taskforce) was asked to consider the feasibility of options to lower insurance premiums in areas subject to high cyclone risk.
In its assessment of policy options, the Taskforce found that mitigation activities to reduce the risk of damage from cyclones are the only way to reduce premiums on a sustainable basis.
On 18 December 2017, the Government announced its response to the Taskforce, along with its response to the Senate Inquiry into the General Insurance Industry, stating that the Government accepts the findings of the Taskforce, and will not intervene directly in the insurance market at this time.
Instead, the Government is proceeding with a set of important reforms to place downward pressure on insurance premiums through increased accountability and transparency within the industry, as well as proposals to increase consumer understanding of insurance, which were recommended as part of the Senate Inquiry into the General Insurance Industry.
To date, the Government has provided the following responses to the issues raised in the Northern Australia Insurance Premiums Taskforce:
A North Queensland Insurance Comparison Website, announced in the 2014-15 Budget and operational since March 2015, that provides comparison information on available home buildings and contents policy features and indicative premiums for nearly 800 Queensland towns and suburbs north of Rockhampton, including coastal and inland regions.
$12.5 million for the development and management of a strata title inspection scheme in north Queensland, announced in the 2014-15 Budget, which will be undertaken by James Cook University and commencing in 2018.
$7.9 million to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to undertake an inquiry into the monitoring of insurance premiums in northern Australia, announced in the 2017-18 Budget. The ACCC will monitor and report on prices, costs and profits in the insurance market for home, contents and strata insurance in northern Australia, with a particular focus on the impact of natural catastrophe risk. The ACCC released an issues paper for consultation in October 2017 and will hold public hearings over the next month. The ACCC will provide its first report to the Government by 30 November 2018.
In addition to these initiatives, the Australian Government over the past decade has contributed over $10.5 billion under the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements to support recovery efforts nationally. Of this, more than $9 billion has been provided to Queensland.
Since 2013, the Australian Government has committed more than $30 million to the Queensland Government under the National Partnership Agreement on Natural Disaster Resilience to support local projects that build the disaster resilience of Queensland communities.
The Government remains committed to working with all stakeholders to develop solutions that will lead to sustainable reductions in premium levels, promote a competitive insurance market and make a recognisable difference for consumers in northern Australia. However, as the problem of insurance affordability in northern Australia is a complex issue and requires action by all stakeholders, the Government continues to urge state and territory governments to abolish inefficient stamp duties, strata commissions and other levies on general insurance premiums.
These taxes increase the cost of insurance for policyholders and can lead to under or non-insurance. Removal of these taxes by Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory would see an immediate reduction in insurance premiums for policyholders - for instance, in Queensland, the stamp duty removal would mean a nine per cent reduction immediately. The Government will continue to make the case for the elimination of these taxes with state and territory governments in a range of forums.
Information on these reforms can be found in the Government response at
http://kmo.ministers.treasury.gov.au/media-release/120-2017/.
I hope this information will be of assistance to you.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, Minister for Women, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, The Hon Kelly O'Dwyer MP
Marriage Act
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 6 February 2018 regarding petition number EN0417, relating to anti-discrimination legislation and amendments to the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) to enable same-sex marriage.
Petition EN0417 requests that the House of Representatives 'maintain existing anti-discrimination legislation and it's (sic) intent by not allowing the protections to be watered down by the introduction of exemptions (specifically targeted at non-heterosexual weddings and marriages) in the process of amending the Marriage Act'. I hope the following information assists to inform the Standing Committee on Petitions as to the Australian Government's position on this matter.
The Australian Government considers that people are entitled to respect, dignity and the opportunity to participate in society and to receive the protection of the law, regardless of personal attributes such as their marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status. Consistent with this position, the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (Sex Discrimination Act) makes discrimination on these grounds unlawful in a broad range of areas of public life.
The Australian Government is also committed to protecting freedom of speech, freedom of religion and belief, and other traditional rights and liberties. All Australians are free to choose their religion and belief, and are entitled to express and practise their religion and belief, without intimidation and without interference, as long as those practices are within the framework of Australian law.
The Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 was introduced to the Senate by Senator Dean Smith as a private Senator's Bill on 15 November 2017. The Senate approved consequential amendments to the Bill and passed the amended Bill on 29 November 2017. The House of Representatives passed the amended Bill on 7 December 2017.
On 9 December 2017, the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017 (Marriage Amendment Act) commenced, providing for marriage equality in Australia. The right to marry is no longer determined by sex or gender. Marriage is now defined in the Marriage Act as the 'union of two people to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life'.
The Marriage Amendment Act maintains the capacity for ministers of religion and Defence Force chaplains to refuse to solemnise a marriage in specified circumstances, including where refusing to solemnise a marriage would conform to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of the religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion. The Act creates a new category of 'religious marriage celebrants' who may refuse to solemnise a marriage on the basis of their religious beliefs. Religious bodies may act in accordance with their doctrines, tenets and beliefs, or where it is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion, in providing facilities, goods and services in connection with the solemnisation of a marriage.
The Marriage Amendment Act also amends the Sex Discrimination Act to repeal the exemption in subsection 40(5) and a related definition. The consequence of this repeal is that refusals to make, issue and alter official records of a person's sex on the basis that the person is married, even if the refusal is required to be made under State or Territory legislation, will no longer be exempt from the protections against discrimination in Division 2 of the Sex Discrimination Act. Such refusals will therefore be unlawful.
Repealing subsection 40(5) is intended to provide a catalyst for States and Territories with such laws (which includes all States and Territories other than the Australian Capital Territory and South Australia) to amend them. Repealing subsection 40(5) will enable complaints of discrimination to be brought under the Sex Discrimination Act.
The Australian Government acknowledges that many Australians are concerned by the impact that changes to the Marriage Act will have on the rights to religious freedom. That is why the Australian Government initiated the Review of Religious Freedom, which is being chaired by the Hon Phillip Ruddock and is examining whether Australian law adequately protects the human right to freedom of religion. Mr Ruddock will provide his report to the Australian Government in the first half of 2018.
Thank you again for bringing this petition to my attention. I trust this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Attorney-General, The Hon Christian Porter MP
Gambling
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letters of 5 December 2017 and 6 February 2018 about petitions requesting for the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (IGA) to be amended to prohibit the betting on the outcome of a lottery draw (`lottery betting').
Twelve petitions were received in the first referral (PN0158-0160, PN0180-0182, and PN0184- 0189) and 43 petitions were received in the second referral (PN0183, PN0195-0199, PN0203, PN0208-0209, PN0211, PN0215-0220, PN0223-0226, PN0231-0236, PN0238, PN0240-0242, PN0244-0247, PN0254, PN0264-0267, PN0269-0270, and PN0272-0273).
I note that the petitions raise concerns regarding the impacts of lottery betting products on small business and their minimal contribution to State and Territory tax revenue.
As the majority of lottery betting providers are licensed and regulated by the Northern Territory (NT) Government, on 18 September 2017 I wrote to the Hon Natasha Fyles MLA, the NT minister with portfolio responsibility for gambling, seeking a response to the concerns that have been raised by stakeholders in relation to lottery betting.
On 14 November 2017, Ms Fyles responded to my correspondence noting that on
7 November 2017, pursuant to section 19 of the Racing and Betting Act (NT), she had directed the Northern Territory Racing Commission to revoke its approval of Australian-based lotteries as an approved sporting event as defined under the Act.
The prohibition took effect on 30 November 2017 and as such, operators licensed in the NT are prohibited from offering betting services on the outcome of Australian-based lotteries.
The Government is continuing to closely examine the matter and considering whether Commonwealth intervention is required. Any policy decision on lottery betting will consider the impact on Australian small businesses and other stakeholders.
Thank you for bringing these petitions to my attention. I trust this information will be of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Communications, Minister for the Arts, Senator the Hon Mitch Fifield
Great River Road Project
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter of 20 October 2016 to the Hon Darren Chester MP, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, regarding the Shire of Towong's application for funding under round three of the National Stronger Regions Fund and the petition (PN0015) for this project. As the matter raised falls within my portfolio responsibility, your letter has been forwarded to me for reply.
I am pleased to advise that the Shire of Towong was successful in its application seeking funding for the Great River Road project. The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development is progressing this project directly with the Shire to finalise the grant agreement and to ensure the timely rollout of the project.
Thank you again for taking the time to write to Minister Chester on this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Local Government and Territories, Minister for Regional Communications, Senator the Hon Fiona Nash
Andrology Australia
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter to the Hon Sussan Ley MP dated 20 October 2016 regarding Petition number PN0016 in relation to federal funding for Andrology Australia. I am responding to this matter in my capacity as the acting Minister for Health and Aged Care/ Minister for Sport.
The request for reinstatement of federal funding for Andrology Australia has been considered. This confirms funding will be provided to Andrology Australia over the period 2016-17 to 2019-20 from the Australian Government Department of Health.
Yours sincerely
from the Acting Minister for Health and Aged Care, Acting Minister for Sport, Senator the Hon Arthur Sinodinos AO
Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program
Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter of 22 May 2017 concerning PN0059, presented on 22 May 2017.
The Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program (HEPPP) aims to ensure that Australians from low SES backgrounds who have the ability to study at university have the opportunity to do so. HEPPP provides funding to the universities listed in Table A of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (HESA) to support these students by implementing strategies and undertaking activities to improve their access to undergraduate courses and to improve the retention and completion rates of these students.
On 1 May 2017, as part of the higher education reform package, I announced the Australian Government's intention to enshrine HEPPP funding in legislation under HESA. This will provide universities with the highest certainty possible of ongoing funding under the HEPPP.
The HEPPP reforms will, subject to the passage of legislation currently before the Parliament, legislate a loading of $985 (indexed) per low SES student per year. This will give universities funding certainty so they deliver a consistent level of support over time, and facilitate longer term planning and projects. The HEPPP reforms will also introduce performance funding ($13.3 million per year, indexed) rewarding universities that improve their average success rates for low SES or Indigenous students. Finally, the HEPPP reforms will provide $9.5 million per year (indexed) under the National Priorities Pool to support projects that develop evidence, trial innovative ideas and encourage collaboration between universities for more effective implementation of the HEPPP.
With respect to the higher education Disability Support Program (DSP), the Government provides funding to the universities listed at Table A of HESA to undertake activities that assist in removing barriers to access higher education for students with disability.
In 2014, the Government commissioned KMPG to evaluate the DSP. The evaluation report was completed in 2015 and identified a number of potential options to improve the program's design. One of the options identified was to raise the threshold for claims under the Additional Support for Students with Disability component to $3000 from $500, as a means of better targeting the program's support towards students whose ability to attend university required high cost adjustments. However, the evaluation does not recommend, and this option does not result in, reduced funding for the DSP.
The Government released a consultation paper in October 2016 outlining a proposed Government response to the DSP evaluation findings, with submissions closing on 25 November 2016. The Government continues to consider the evaluation findings along with stakeholder feedback following the consultation process, and will announce any program reforms in due course.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Education and Training, Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham
Bass Highway
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter of 23. June 2017 regarding a petition (PN0061) requesting Australian Government support for a proposal to undertake planning work on road safety improvements on the Bass Highway between Marrawah and Burnie.
The Australian Government is committed to supporting investment in new and upgraded infrastructure that increases the safety of highways and road networks across Australia.
The Australian Government would consider a submission on this proposal under future funding rounds if identified as a priority by the Tasmanian Government. To date, the Tasmanian Government has not made any representation to the Australian Government relating to this proposal.
Thank you again for taking the time to write to me on this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, The Hon Darren Chester MP
Dental Treatment
Dear Mrs Wicks
I refer to your letter of 23 October 2017 concerning a petition (PN1O8) recently presented in the House on dental treatment under Medicare. I regret the delay in responding.
The Government recognises the importance of good oral health. While dental treatment is not generally available under Medicare, there are a range of services funded by governments which are designed to support people who would otherwise have difficulty accessing dental services.
The Chronic Disease Dental Scheme (CDDS) commenced on 1 November 2007. To be eligible for the CDDS, a person needed to have a chronic medical condition with complex care needs and their oral health was impacting on, or likely to impact on, their general health. The patient needed to be referred to a dentist by their GP before they could access benefits for dental services. The CDDS was closed by the then Labor Government in 2012.
The state and territory governments are responsible for the provision of public dental services. Since 2013, the Commonwealth has supported states and territories in the delivery of public dental services, providing around $576 million through National Partnership Agreements for the treatment of an additional 667,000 people. In addition, the current National Partnership Agreement on Public Dental Services for Adults provides $242.5 million between 1 January 2017 and 30 June 2019 for around 400,000 extra public dental services.
In addition, the Commonwealth funds the Child Dental Benefits Schedule (CDBS). The CDBS provides access to benefits for basic dental services for eligible children aged 2-17 years. Since its commencement on 1 January 2014, the CDBS has provided almost $1.2 billion in benefits to almost 2.1 million children.
The Australian Government is also making a significant investment in the oral health of young Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. Under the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Aboriginal Investment, $33.4 million is being provided over 2012-13 to 2021-22 for oral health services in the Northern Territory. This funding is used by the Northern Territory Government to deliver an integrated oral health program for Aboriginal children to the age of 16 years.
Under the Indigenous Australians' Health Program, a further $7.4 million of funding from 2012-13 to 2021-22 is provided to Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations to deliver oral health services in the Northern Territory.
The latest available data reported in the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's Northern Territory Remote Aboriginal Investment: Oral Health Program — July 2012 to December 2015 shows that:
from July 2012 to December 2015, 7,660 Indigenous children and adolescents were provided with 12,739 occasions of service;
the proportion of children with dental caries decreased for:
1-3-year-olds, where the proportion decreased from 73 per cent in December 2009 to 42 per cent in December 2015;
5-year-olds, where the proportion decreased from 88 per cent to 79 per cent; and
12-year-olds, where the proportion decreased from 81 per cent to 69 per cent.
Thank you for writing on this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Health, Minister for Sport, The Hon Greg Hunt MP
Tobacco
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your correspondence of 5 December 2017 to the Minister for Health, the
Hon Greg Hunt MP, regarding a petition (petition number PN0190) to increase the minimum age of purchase for tobacco products in Australia. This matter has been referred to me as the Minister for Rural Health, Minister for Sport and Minister for Regional Communications with portfolio responsibility for this matter. I apologise for the delay in responding.
Tobacco smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death and disease among Australians and was estimated to kill almost 19,000 people in 2011. The Australian Government, together with the state and territory governments, is committed to reducing the prevalence of smoking and its associated health, social and economic costs and the inequalities it causes.
Responsibility for the prevention and cessation of smoking is shared between the Australian Government and state and territory governments. The Australian Government has implemented a broad range of tobacco control measures to date, including: excise increases on tobacco; education programs and campaigns; plain packaging of tobacco products; labelling tobacco products with updated and larger graphic health warnings; prohibiting tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship and providing support for smokers to quit.
Proposals to raise the minimum age of purchase for tobacco products should be brought to the attention of states and territories, as they have lead responsibility for regulating the retail sale of tobacco products.
The Australian Government will continue to explore a range of proven, new and innovative tobacco control measures in consultation with states and territories which are supported by evidence and give appropriate consideration to reducing both the supply and demand of tobacco in Australia.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Rural Health, Minister for Sport, Minister for Regional Communications, Senator the Hon Bridget McKenzie
Adani
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for referring petition PN0214 to me, regarding the provision of finance from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF) to Adani's North Galilee Basin Rail Project.
I would like to advise that the Queensland Government has exercised its right of veto over this project on 12 December 2017. The Premier, the Hon Palaszczuk MP, formally notified the NAIF that no financial assistance should be provided to Adani for its North Galilee Basin Rail Project.
In accordance with clause 13(4) of the NAIF's Investment Mandate, the NAIF is no longer considering this project.
Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to respond to this petition.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator the Hon Matthew Canavan
Refugee
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your correspondence of 14 February 2018 enclosing Petition PN0296, concerning the Australian Government's regional processing and settlement arrangements.
As a party to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (the Refugee Convention) and its 1967 Protocol, Australia takes its international obligations seriously. Australia is committed to providing protection to refugees consistent with the obligations set out in the Refugee Convention and other relevant international treaties to which Australia is a party.
With the establishment of Operation Sovereign Borders on 18 September 2013, the Government has focused on disrupting and deterring people smugglers, detecting and intercepting illegal maritime arrivals, and supporting regional processing and resettlement of refugees, as well as returns of those transferees not found to be owed protection. Anyone who comes to Australia illegally by boat will be subject to regional processing arrangements and will not be eligible for permanent residency in Australia.
Nauru and Papua New Guinea (PNG) are both signatories to the Refugee Convention.
The Governments of Nauru and PNG are responsible for assessment of protection claims for people transferred to those countries under the regional processing arrangements.
Persons determined by Nauru to be refugees may remain in Nauru for up to 20 years, settle in Cambodia, express an interest in United States (US) resettlement, or move to a country they have the right to reside in.
Persons determined by PNG to be refugees may settle in PNG, express an interest in resettlement, volunteer to move to Nauru to await third country resettlement, or move to a country they have the right to reside in.
Resettlement of refugees from Nauru and PNG in the US commenced in September 2017 and continues in 2018. This arrangement demonstrates the strength of Australia's relationship with the US, and our shared commitment to working together on a range of global refugee and humanitarian issues.
US authorities continue to apply their own rigorous assessment and vetting processes to decide which refugees are eligible for resettlement in the US, and where and when this will take place.
Non-refugees should return home and can access assistance to do so.
Australia assists PNG, Nauru and Cambodia to provide refugees with settlement support to assist with integration into the local community. Services are delivered through a needs-based case management model and may include cultural and language orientation, employment, education and health linking, income support and accommodation assistance. Settlement services focus on building independence and self-sufficiency.
The Australian Government's Operation Sovereign Borders policies are designed to safeguard vulnerable people from exploitation by people smugglers, prevent the loss of life at sea and restore the integrity of Australia's borders. Restoration of Australia's border integrity has enabled the Government to increase the annual refugee intake. As a result, the Humanitarian Programme has increased from 13,750 in 2016-17 to 16,250 in 2017-18 and will reach 18,750 in 2018-19. The 2018-19 Programme will represent Australia's largest offshore humanitarian intake in more than 30 years. Focusing on persecuted minorities, Australia has also welcomed 12,000 refugees from the Syrian conflict zone on top of this. The ongoing success of these strong border control policies has enabled the closure of 17 domestic immigration detention facilities.
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, The Hon Peter Dutton MP
BILLS
Live Sheep Long Haul Export Prohibition Bill 2018
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Ley.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms LEY (Farrer) (10:04): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 to insert a new section 16A which states that:
A livestock export licence is subject to a condition:
that livestock that are sheep or lambs must not be exported from Australia, by ship, to:
A place in the Persian Gulf or the Red Sea—or any other place if the route is through the Persian Gulf or Red Sea
in a July, August or September, in the transitional period, or at any time after the end of that period, if the duration of that voyage is 10 days or more.
The transition period is five years.
From a childhood in the deserts of the United Arab Emirates to an early life as a mustering pilot then worker in the shearing sheds of western Queensland, 17 years as a sheep farmer myself and a representative of sheep and wool producers for my entire time in parliament, I have spent more than half my life close to Australia's rural and pastoral industries.
I know all the arguments that are used to support the live sheep trade because I ran them myself for 15 years.
Recently I found cause to look at the industry with fresh eyes. I have been shocked, angered, bewildered and disappointed.
I have researched the science, the facts, the economics and the opinions. I have not allowed emotions to overcome reason.
The case for continuing long-haul live sheep exports fails on both economic and animal welfare grounds.
Only six per cent of our sheep and lamb offtake are exported live.
Most of these are sourced in Western Australia, and I acknowledge that some farmers in this state will be affected and will move to alternative markets and/or production models.
We export sheep and lamb to 100 countries.
In WA the mutton price is 20 times greater than it was 20 years ago. Processing has built these markets.
We can identify and fast-track new development in WA abattoirs and create more jobs and greater value-adding.
If we set a five-year end date, investors can have the certainty and confidence to build new processing capacity.
The live sheep trade is in terminal decline, dropping by two-thirds in the last five years.
It is based on just two customers in two countries, Kuwait and Qatar who account for 70 per cent of exported sheep.
The demand for live sheep comes from its cheap retail price due to government subsidies, not cultural or refrigeration reasons.
Ninety-nine per cent of consumers in the Gulf have refrigeration.
Every Middle Eastern country accepts Australian halal slaughter.
The subsidies are phasing out. Bahrain ended theirs in 2015 and went from 325,000 live sheep from Australia to zero.
The transition was not to live sheep from another country, but to the same number of carcasses, shipped by air, from Australia.
These countries are demanding more and more fresh bagged lamb and mutton; value-added in Australia and flown over in Middle Eastern airlines, growing from 260,000 head in 2004 to 2.7 million head in 2016.
Our live sheep are discharged into a feedlot, slaughtered and end up under cellophane in a refrigerated shopping mall, next to the chilled product air-freighted from Australia 24 hours earlier.
The litany of animal cruelty in the live sheep trade makes a mockery of the industry's 'No fear, no pain' mantra.
If the rules were actually enforced—access to feed, water and rest, avoiding high heat stress, no commercial operator would undertake the trade.
Exporters have explained to me that it would not be viable. Unfortunately this is an industry with an operating model built on animal suffering.
As live export vet Lynn Simpson remarked:
I watched animals suffer and die for 57 voyages. The spectrum of their suffering differed but the true death count has never been declared. It will likely never see the light of day. Like so many animals who died below the water line on a ship in the middle of the ocean.
I applaud the agriculture minister's strong response to recent footage but I'm not confident that the McCarthy review recommendations will go far enough.
A 60-kilo sheep will be allocated extra space equivalent to just under two A4 pieces of paper.
We're told we need more research on an already questionable heat-stress model to work out where to draw the line. Perhaps we should accept the existing, overwhelming evidence of poor animal welfare associated with these voyages.
It is farmers who have been deceived by an export industry that has for 33 years and countless second chances been very good at talking the talk and downright culpable when it comes to walking the walk.
Exporters do not comply with the rules. Much of the live export chain lies outside Australia's legal jurisdiction in international waters and overseas countries.
As one WA consultant to the trade told me, regulations written on paper in Australia cease to mean anything once the ship departs.
In the modern world ethics and sustainability in the production of food and fibre are vital. Sanctioning further voyages on these ships of shame, particularly into a Middle Eastern summer, damages our brand.
Nor will they understand the logic of putting our clean green sheep meat industry at risk for a sector that is one-tenth the size, in decline and actually competes with our domestic production.
Parliamentarians are certainly noting high levels of community outrage, and I give the last word to Mrs Shirley Dale from rural NSW who wrote to me saying:
"I am 82 years and in this the last chapter of my life I did not think I would be so moved to want to stand up for any causes—but the plight of these suffering animals cannot be ignored.
This is not an issue of economics—it is so much greater than that. It is a test of our humanity—as individuals and as a nation."
I will give the rest of my allotted time to my excellent seconder, the member for Corangamite.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (10:11): It is my pleasure to second the Live Sheep Long Haul Export Prohibition Bill 2018, which has been introduced by the member for Farrer. I also want to acknowledge the support of the member for La Trobe. I congratulate the member for Farrer on the stand she has taken, which takes courage, and I'm proud to join with her in our proposal to end the export of live sheep to the Middle East.
It is significant that we both, as Liberal members of parliament representing large regional electorates including many farmers and agribusinesses, have taken this stand. Overwhelmingly, the people of Corangamite are saying, 'Enough is enough.' After decades of noncompliance, after decades of inhumane treatment of sheep, after decades of tolerating a trade which continues to tarnish our international reputation, Australians are saying, 'Enough is enough'. The scenes on the Awassi Express, where more than 2,000 sheep died—many literally cooking to death—were utterly horrific. The government response has been swift and strong, and I commend the agriculture minister on his efforts to fix this trade and hold rogue exporters to account, but we need to do more. The bill proposes an end to long-haul live sheep exports only—not cattle or short-haul exports—over five years. This is a measured and responsible lead time, in stark contrast to Labor's overnight shutdown of the cattle trade, which had dramatic consequences.
The interests of farmers and rural communities on this issue are paramount. If the bill is passed, it will provide our farmers, processors and the extended supply chain with the appropriate time to transition completely to chilled lamb and mutton exports to the Middle East, to grow our sheepmeat processing capacity, to invest with certainty, to protect and enhance our reputation as a nation of agricultural excellence and to invest in more Australian jobs. There must be proper consultation with farmers and industry. This transition is, in fact, already underway. Where the live sheep trade is in rapid decline, we are seeing a dramatic increase in the export of Australian chilled lamb and mutton by air to the Middle East. This can, of course, only continue. Western Australia has the processing facilities to make this transition. The challenge is in securing and training the workforce, and that's where governments can play a major role.
The bill also proposes that from 2019 there will be no export of live sheep to the Middle East during the hottest summer months: July, August and September. The highly credible scientific evidence from the Australian Veterinary Association is that sheep deaths and heat stress cannot be avoided during the extreme temperatures and humidity of a Middle Eastern summer, even with improved ventilation and lower stocking rates. It is incredibly disappointing that the McCarthy review has not followed the science and recommended the prohibition of live sheep export during the summer. If any person in Australia crammed sheep into a transport vehicle to stand in their own excrement for 25 days in the searing heat with limited access to food and water, that person would be charged with animal cruelty. The time has come. Backed by the science, the facts and the economics, this is a trade which must come to an end. I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
BILLS
Fair Work Amendment (Making Australia More Equal) Bill 2018
First Reading
Bill—by leave—and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bandt.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (10:15): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Whether we like it or not, technology is fundamentally reshaping the nature of work. Our fingertips have never been so powerful. It's never been easier to get food delivered to your door and to find people on the internet to do the jobs that people don't have the time, the patience or the expertise to do.
And the combination of technology and neo-liberalism, or trickle-down economics, is extraordinarily powerful because, left unregulated, technological advancements can enhance and intensify the worst aspects of a market economy.
If we don't change the rules, if we don't update them, every advancement made in the name of convenience could be a setback for decent pay and conditions for those who help make our lives more convenient.
Because this technology that is enabling the new economy has no regard for minimum standards and practices, without new laws we may end up with 21st-century technology but 19th-century work practices. A fundamental Greens principle is that all workers are entitled to have a fair and equitable industrial relations system and receive fair and equitable remuneration for their work. It's not our job in here to hold back technological advancements but it is our job to make sure that society keeps up and that the new economy doesn't come at the cost of being able to live a good life, of which decent wages and conditions are a core part.
That's why today I'm introducing the Fair Work Amendment (Making Australia More Equal) Bill 2018, a bill that will give the Fair Work Commission the power to extend provisions of the Fair Work Act, or awards or enterprise agreements, to gig economy workers and others in non-standard forms of work.
Currently, many workers in the gig economy or non-standard work are engaged as independent contractors, which means they're not given the rights of employees under the Fair Work Act 2009. Workers may also be engaged through intermediary companies or agencies, meaning they are not treated as employees of the corporation they're effectively working for. This gives corporations the power to avoid extending certain rights to workers, including, but not limited to, paying minimum wages, leave entitlements and superannuation as well as protection from laws governing unfair dismissal.
This bill will change the law to introduce a presumption that all workers, however classified, are entitled to at least the same minimum standards as employees. And the Fair Work Commission will be able to issue a minimum entitlements order, which will apply sections of the Fair Work Act or modern award or applicable enterprise agreements to those workers as if they were employees.
A minimum entitlements order under this bill would have the effect of extending minimum pay and conditions to workers, rights which otherwise may not be afforded to them due to the way they have been labelled by the corporation in question. This could apply to workers such as Uber drivers, for example, and will deter corporations from using legal devices such as independent contract arrangements as a way of avoiding minimum pay and condition obligations. Corporations would still be free to use whatever legal arrangement they wish, but they would not be able to use it to undercut the legal minimum that applies to employees. That is why the bill is called the Making Australia More Equal Bill—because we will be saying there will be an equal floor that applies across all workers and that you would not be able to use clever lawyers, or different ways of labelling people, as a way of paying someone less than if they were engaged as an employee. You can still have whatever arrangement you like, but there is now a legal minimum that stops you using cuts to wages and conditions as a way of making profits. Because the truth is, after three decades of Labor and Liberal neo-liberalism, life is getting worse and more insecure for many people in this country. Wage growth is stagnating while company profits are increasing. Penalty rates have been cut, inequality is at a record high, underemployment is rife in the economy, and casualisation is up. Wage theft is commonplace. And while union and union officials are under attack, big corporations are jockeying for billions of dollars in tax cuts.
This year it was reported that some bicycle deliverers for Uber Eats, Foodora and Deliveroo, who are calling for better conditions and government regulation, are paid as little as $6 an hour—and sometimes it looks like even less than $6 an hour. Thanks to Anna Patty at Fairfax, you can read about people like Matthew, a counselling and psychotherapy student and food delivery driver, who calls the days when he made $14 and hour and $5 for each delivery the 'golden days' because now Matthew is working 25 per cent more for 33 per cent less pay. Anna Patty wrote:
Now riders get as little as $7 a delivery, without any additional hourly payment. And some can wait up to two hours between delivery jobs.
Matthew says:
These guys are making $14, $7 or zero dollars per hour.
No delivery for two hours? Zero dollars an hour in Australia? That is not a sentence that we should have to utter. It's not just Matthew.
The Transport Workers' Union conducted a survey of food delivery riders and found that three in four were paid below the minimum wage. The survey found riders were underpaid; had been injured on the job without insurance, cover or sick pay; and one had worked more than 40 hours a week. And that's not all. On 17 May, four days ago, Anna Patty from Fairfax again reported that Deliveroo was offering $18 million worth of shares to its 2,000 permanent employees globally so that all its employees have skin in the game. The Australian manager said this was exciting for new people coming into the business. But this does not apply to the food delivery drivers because they are not classed as employees. As the manager repeated, those drivers are able to choose themselves when and how they work and, apparently, they value their flexibility. So under the current rules, people like Matthew work 25 per cent more for 33 per cent less pay, Deliveroo's senior executives get a nice little injection into their share portfolio, but we're led to believe that these people, who are crying out for more secure arrangements and decent pay, apparently want it that way—rubbish!
All of us enjoy the convenience of the new economy but we would hope, when someone delivers food to our door from our favourite restaurant, that the person doing the delivering is getting paid properly and that's what this bill will do; it will allow that to happen. I don't think anyone would quibble with that. But at the moment, because Deliveroo riders are independent contractors with an ABN and, similarly, Uber recently argued successfully to the Fair Work Commission that its drivers are not employees but independent contractors, we are left with a gap in the law. In his ruling on the issue in the Fair Work Commission, Val Gostencnikin the Australian Financial Review said:
Perhaps the law of employment will evolve to catch pace with the evolving nature of the digital economy.
Perhaps the legislature will develop laws to refine traditional notions of employment or broaden protection to participants in the digital economy.
That's exactly what this bill attempts to do; it attempts to provide for that update so that all the people that we see riding around on bikes or motorbikes or cars with big companies' logos on their side can get the minimum wages and conditions that we would all think are fair minimum wages and conditions. We're not even talking in this bill about lifting minimum wages and conditions, even though we desperately need to do that. We're just saying: give the Fair Work Commission the power to extend on a case-by-case basis the minimum protections that apply to employees to all of these other kinds of workers across the board.
I say to everyone who at the moment is in the gig economy, who is busting their gut for no money and no conditions, the legislation to give you minimum wages and entitlements is now sitting before this parliament. The words that will broaden protection for workers in the gig economy are on this piece of paper, in this bill. And the only thing that needs to happen now is for people—on all sides of parliament—to put aside politics and to vote for this important, timely bill.
I would hope it gets the support from members of the government, because they hear from small businesses who say that, because they don't have the resources to enter into clever arrangements, they're getting undercut by the big corporations who use these devices. And I hope it gets support from the opposition, because they have said people need to be looked after and their rights at work protected. So there's no reason that this bill could not proceed through this parliament now.
And, every day, things are becoming more urgent. The gap between the very well off and everyone else is growing, and one of the biggest gaps in this country, the biggest divisions, is between the secure and the insecure. This bill will go a long way to making people's life more secure and to relieving their anxiety. I commend this bill to the House.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Mr Wilkie: I second the bill and reserve my right to speak.
The SPEAKER: The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Air Services Amendment Bill 2018 (No. 2)
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bandt.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (10:26): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I am introducing the Air Services Amendment Bill 2018 to give greater protections for communities affected by aircraft noise.
Right now, communities aren't adequately consulted and don't have an adequate voice on aircraft movements and flight paths that directly affect them. The institutions that should be protecting residents are failing. We need to change this.
This bill would give Melbourne, for example, similar rules to that of Paris when it comes to small aircraft flying over the city and over residential areas, and, of course, it would not affect any flights taken in connection with hospitals, emergency services, defence or other aircraft.
Melbourne is famous for its livability—but, as our city grows and changes, the livability and amenity are under pressure. Aircraft noise is a key example of these pressures. Unnecessary and problematic aircraft noise from private operators is harming the livability of residential communities—but, under our current laws on aircraft noise, those residential communities have no say in it, and nowhere to turn to to raise their voice. In writing the laws that protect residents, we need to decide: will these laws be written in the public interest, or for vested interests?
Now, this is the second time I have introduced a bill to tackle aircraft noise in cities such as mine, in Melbourne.
In 2016, I introduced a similar bill, the Air Services Amendment Bill 2016. I think it's worth revisiting here the situation faced by my constituents that led to its introduction.
The bill I first introduced came on the back of several years of my constituents working within the existing laws to seek a solution to the issues of aircraft noise in Melbourne. Over that time, I have spoken in this place about the experience of my constituents, and tabled a petition in parliament signed by hundreds of residents. I and my office have joined residents in meetings with representatives of various federal agencies, airports and aircraft operators. My constituents have sent hundreds of letters to aircraft operators, agencies and other stakeholders. My colleague the Greens senator for Victoria Janet Rice has further raised the issue in the Senate and in other fora. What's more, Senator Rice and others have been doing similar work with communities affected by aircraft noise right around the country.
What became clear throughout this protracted process was that the laws on aircraft noise are written for businesses and operators and not for the communities that live with aircraft noise every day. These laws need to change.
I was first in contact with residents of the suburb of East Melbourne, in my electorate, regarding aircraft noise in 2013. At that time, residents told me that they had noticed a significant increase in small aircraft, such as helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft, flying at low altitude over the suburb. The observations of residents were borne out by the official flight path data, which showed that small aircraft commonly circle in the airspace above these suburbs. In one weekend, for example, over 200 flights took place over the suburb, at low levels by noisy aircraft. I understand that the number of small aircraft flights over residential areas has been increasing over time—many may be looking at the MCG or the city, not essential flights by any means, and certainly not flights designed to avoid disruption to residents.
For those who don't know the area of Melbourne and East Melbourne, it adjoins the CBD and it adjoins the MCG, and increasingly many operators have decided to fly fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters at low levels over these suburbs. Subsequently, it appears that the flight paths of larger aircraft may also have been altered, resulting in an increase in noise from these flights over the suburbs. I have also been contacted by residents in other neighbourhoods, including Fitzroy, Richmond and Kensington, who have also noticed an increase in air traffic. Meanwhile, residents in Docklands experience high-frequency, extremely loud flights near to residential buildings—often from helicopter traffic.
You only need to look at a map or a visual representation to see that this is the case. Small aircraft are taking off, sometimes near the city, then flying in loops around the MCG or over the suburbs over East Melbourne at very low levels on a regular basis. When you have flight after flight and add it all up, you understand that this isn't something that some might dismiss, 'Well, every now and then an aircraft flies over you, and you get used to it.' No. This is unnecessary traffic that is having an impact on the lives of people who live in these areas. It is a function of Melbourne becoming a growing city and more and more people coming to want to live in the city, but also of having many people who live in that area as well. No-one has yet struck the right balance between the two, and that's what this bill intends to do. Of course, they have done this in other cities, like Paris. They understood that if you want to have a city that is liveable and that has people enjoying a good quality of life, you have to regulate, and that's what we're intending to do here.
It became increasingly clear to us as we tried to fix this problem and get to the bottom of how to deal with it that the buck stopped with nobody in this country.
My constituents were sent from door to door, and told repeatedly that no response was possible to their legitimate concerns.
Amongst the array of government and private sector agencies that engage with aircraft issues, there is not a single regulator that is responsible for minimising the impact of aircraft noise on the human and natural environment, community amenity and residential areas.
Much airspace above residential areas is considered 'uncontrolled', meaning that no air traffic control takes place—and in practice my constituents have found that while institutions may exist to prevent accidents or safety risks, there is simply nobody protecting the amenity of residents from unnecessary air traffic noise. Airservices Australia wouldn't even provide residents with noise monitoring or recording to clarify the scale of the problem.
When the law makes no federal agency responsible for protecting the community, the power is very much with the operators and the businesses rather than with the residents when seeking voluntary agreements.
Meanwhile, consultation mechanisms have been flawed. Too often residents are simply unaware of changes to flight paths above their homes until they find out because of the significant increase in noise they hear daily once the changes have already happened. How can there be no genuine consultation on aircraft noise when residents are not even informed until it is too late?
We brought this matter before the parliament many years ago. We introduced a bill back in 2016. We shouldn't have to come back time and time again to get this problem fixed. The government should fix it and should fix it now.
I would like, in particular, to note some of the important developments that have taken place in our attempt to get this problem fixed.
My Greens colleague Senator Janet Rice has introduced in the other place the Air Services Amendment Bill 2018, a bill that is similar to the bill I am introducing today the House of Representatives.
It is my hope that senators reviewing that bill will be supportive of these changes to the law.
I would like to Senator Rice for her important work on this issue and for representing communities affected by aircraft noise around the country.
I also want to take this chance to acknowledge the important advocacy of the state member for Melbourne, Ellen Sandell, and the City of Melbourne, in particular Councillors Cathy Oke and Rohan Leppert, in pushing for local solutions to ameliorate the impacts of aircraft noise. Their work has led to completion of a voluntary agreement known as a fly neighbourly agreement with aircraft operators. This is important, but it hasn't fixed the problem, because it's clear that changes are needed at the federal level to give communities and local representatives the tools that they need to fix the issue.
Legislation is required to change and clarify the responsibilities of federal agencies so that, when it comes to aircraft noise, communities have a voice. It's clear that communities around the country that are affected by aircraft noise are not being represented and are not being protected.
This bill will amend the Air Services Act 1995 to do a number of things. It will include in the function of Airservices Australia the protection of community amenity in residential areas from the effects of the operation and use of aircraft. It will also require Airservices Australia to consult and cooperate with communities when modifying or creating flight paths. It will require Airservices Australia to provide a mechanism for complaints during the consultation process and also require that they publish details of consultation. And it provides for the establishment of a proper independent aircraft noise ombudsman with teeth to receive, examine, resolve and report on complaints and issues that is arise from flight paths and aircraft-noise-related matters. It also has some consequential amendments to other acts.
Finally, in response to the specific and acute circumstances of high-intensity flights of small aircraft in uncontrolled airspace over Melbourne, it would prohibit flights of helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft below 2,000 metres above sea level within five kilometres of the CBD, with clear exemptions in the public interest for emergency services, defence, aircraft flying to hospitals and other like aircraft.
If Paris can do it to make sure that it remains a world city but a livable one then we can do it here in Australia too for Melbourne.
Mr Rob Mitchell: I thank the member for Melbourne. Is this motion seconded?
Mr Wilkie: I second the bill and reserve my right to speak.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of saying.
MOTIONS
Infrastructure
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (10:37): I move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the role of Government leadership in ensuring the productivity and liveability of Australian cities; and
(2) notes:
(a) the importance of public transport infrastructure in shaping cities and regions;
(b) the record funding commitments for urban public transport infrastructure made under the previous Labor government, including $3.2 billion for the Regional Rail Link project and a further $3 billion committed to the Melbourne Metro rail project (Metro Tunnel);
(c) the recent Infrastructure Australia report Future Cities: Planning for our growing population, which highlights the need for Australian governments to increase investment in public transport in areas experiencing rapid population growth, including in Melbourne's west;
(d) that if an appropriate route is selected, the construction of an airport rail link to Melbourne Airport through Melbourne's west has the potential to create social and economic benefits across the region; and
(e) that further public transport infrastructure projects for fast growing regions like Melbourne's west will be needed in the near future to meet the challenge of population growth.
Australia's major cities are now the engines of the Australian economy. Australia's five largest cities contribute two-thirds of Australia's GDP and, given this, ensuring that our cities remaining productive, livable and free from structural disadvantage should be a core policy priority for all levels of government in this nation. The enormous population growth that has been experienced by our cities in recent decades and its projected continuation into the future raise major challenges for governments in the regard.
Melbourne's west, in my electorate, is on the front line of this challenge. Melbourne's west is booming. Its population is growing at twice the state average. Between the last two censuses we welcomed more than a grand final crowd at the MCG's worth of people to our community. Now, nearly, one-in-five Melburnians call Melbourne's west home. If Melbourne's west continues to grow at this rate, its population will double in just under 20 years. Anyone who lives in Melbourne's west who catches the Sunbury, Williamstown or Werribee lines into the city or who drives a car over the West Gate Bridge to get to work knows that our transport networks are straining under this growth. Traffic congestion could cost our economy up to $20 billion a year in lost time by 2020 if not addressed.
In this high-growth era, the transport infrastructure decisions that governments make or do not make now will shape our cities for decades. The record investments of federal and state Labor governments in public transport in Melbourne's west show this. The previous federal Labor government committed more funding for urban public transport infrastructure than every other government back to Federation combined. These investments shaped our region. The $3.225 billion invested in the Regional Rail Link project separated regional trains from urban commuter trains and increased capacity on urban commuter routes by laying 90 kilometres of new track. New train stations were added by this project to connect new residential communities in Wyndham Vale and Tarneit. We also committed $3 billion for the Melbourne metro rail tunnel, increasing capacity on the Sunbury line by 60 per cent and connecting Melbourne's west to the rail, health, higher education and employment hub at Parkville for the first time.
Investments of this kind stopped in 2013. The Abbott government was open about its contempt for urban public transport infrastructure, going so far as to withdraw the Commonwealth funding for the Melbourne metro rail tunnel that Labor had committed. The Turnbull government is less transparent about its actions and its intents. The Melbourne metro rail link is a case in point. As the state government was already well advanced in planning for the Melbourne airport rail link, the Prime Minister clearly thought that this project might offer him a political fig leaf for his neglect of Victoria on infrastructure investment. I was intrigued by the PM's interest. The Sunshine-Albion corridor route, long investigated by state governments, has the potential to follow the city-shaping legacy of the regional rail link and the Melbourne Metro rail tunnel for my electorate. Melbourne airport has 35 million passengers a year and that is forecast to grow to 60 million passengers by 2033. A Melbourne airport rail link that connects the city to Sunshine and then uses the Albion rail corridor to the airport would allow this area to become a major hub to connect the city and the regional train networks, becoming a major new hub for travellers from Ballarat, Bendigo and Geelong. Sunshine is an ideal location for a health and education services hub that could bring jobs closer to where people live in Melbourne's west, easing the strain on our transport network and commuters.
When the budget was released, however, the Prime Minister's $5 billion wasn't there. He wants to fund this project off-budget, meaning that our investment banker Prime Minister is expecting to make a financial return for the Commonwealth on this investment. This risks putting competing priorities, like securing private sector contributions, or so-called 'value capture arrangements', above the city-shaping potential of this infrastructure for Melbourne's west. It risks this Prime Minister putting the commercial interests of property developers circling the Maribyrnong defence site above those of regional Victorians wanting fast train connections to the CBD and above those of the residents of Melbourne's west who need an employment and services cluster in their community that would create jobs in their community, not the CBD, easing the transport commuter pressure running through our community.
We need a Prime Minister with the right priorities on urban public transport infrastructure, a Prime Minister whose first priority is everyday Australians trying to get to work, trying to get to school, trying to get to the shops or where they need to go. We need a Prime Minister who will fight for jobs in regional areas in Australia and in the outer suburbs of our CBDs, not the top end of town. We don't need a Prime Minister who's trying to make a deal with the big end of town at the cost of these people. The decision about the route for the Melbourne airport rail link is a decision that will shape Melbourne for decades to come. Given the population growth we're experiencing in Melbourne and Melbourne's west, it is crucial that we get this decision right, and to get it right we need a government with the right priorities.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms Ryan: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr DRUM (Murray) (10:42): This bill gives me a great opportunity to speak in relation to infrastructure, certainly in Victoria, but also to the lack of spending on infrastructure in regional Victoria. This bill, this motion, has been worded so heavily towards western Melbourne. It goes to show, again, where everybody's thoughts are in relation to trying to appease the congestion associated with two of our biggest cities in Australia—having 40 per cent of this nation's population existing in Sydney and Melbourne and thinking that the answer to this congestion is to spend more money in the cities, put more lanes on the freeways and put more rail services in place as opposed to investing in the regions as a potential option for population growth.
The previous member spoke about the regional rail project in Victoria. It was a good project, but he forgot to mention that it was built by the coalition government. I know because I was in the coalition government that built it. Don't let the facts get in the way here! The fact is that we were the ones who put six different companies in charge of that project. We built the new rail systems—new rail lines at Wyndham and Tarneit. We built them. I was in the government that built them. So the conversation has to be: 'When that project was first designed by Labor, why did they just put it in the Labor based seats of Bendigo, Ballarat and Geelong?' It was a project of $3.5 billion. Why would you exclude northern Victoria? Why would you exclude the Shepparton line? Why would you exclude the Latrobe Valley line? Why would you exclude Wangaratta and Wodonga?
Why would you make those lines continue, every time they hit Melbourne, to have to work their way through the metropolitan sprawl? We all understand what that means: it slows down the lines by about an additional half an hour every time.
These are simply the facts that we have now. We have a two-tier system in Victoria because the Labor Party has put direct lines from Bendigo, Ballarat and Geelong straight through to Southern Cross but, if you happen to be coming in from the Latrobe Valley, you'll get stuck behind the metropolitan system. If you're coming in from the north, you'll get stuck behind the metropolitan system. That's simply the way it is.
So we see a huge difference now between the Labor Party and the coalition looking for the answers to livability of our states. Certainly, as our major capital cities of Melbourne and Sydney continue to grow, we have to look elsewhere to try to find the answers for this growth. It's very difficult trying to partner with the Victorian state Labor government at the moment when you consider that they've been in government for 15 of the last 19 years. They own the congestion problems of Melbourne. They own the lack of rail services to most parts of northern Victoria. They own that because they've been in government for 15 of the last 19 years. As we have noticed, we have now announced $5 billion to put the airport rail link in place. I understand that this can, in fact, be done for about that amount of money. Again, we have a Victorian Labor Party, who are on the go-slow with that project.
We have here the member for Gellibrand, who has put this bill forward, suggesting that somehow or other they spent and committed more money when they were in government than is currently being spent. The fact is that from 2007-08 to 2012-13, under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd six years, they spent just over $6 billion per annum in total infrastructure spend. Under this government, from 2013-14 to 2021-22, the average infrastructure spend will be over $8 billion. Since 2012-13, the Australian government has provided $24.7 billion in grants to state governments to support major infrastructure. So, every way you look at it, this government has invested in infrastructure. We need it to be done in an equitable fashion, and we need to look after regional Victoria.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): I thank the member for Murray and remind him it's a motion, not a bill, that's before the House.
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (10:47): I rise to speak on the motion moved by the member for Gellibrand and thank him for bringing on this important issue. I'd just note, after listening to the member for Murray, that there was a little bit of confusion there about infrastructure spending. The first point would be that he certainly was in a state government while the Regional Rail Link was being built, but he forgot to mention that they failed to order the trains, which set back the Regional Rail Link's opening for six months, if I remember correctly. I know that when I got here we were expecting that Regional Rail Link to be opened, and of course it was set back for six months because they failed to deliver the trains.
The member for Murray is also confused about something else: he wants to talk about the national spend from this government on infrastructure, and of course this motion is specifically about the fact that that national spend on infrastructure has sorely missed the very important state of Victoria. We're talking today about the fact that we are in an absolutely critical moment in time around Melbourne's population—around the population of Melbourne's west and around the long-term, dramatic and sustained growth that we've seen in the city of Melbourne, not least in the electorate of Lalor, which encompasses the city of Wyndham, which of course has seen extraordinary growth. This federal budget has again neglected Melbourne and the outer western suburbs on infrastructure investment.
Unlike this government, Labor understands the importance of investment in transport and infrastructure, and our record at both federal and state level reflects this. Under the previous federal Labor government, of course, $3.2 billion was invested in the Regional Rail Link, $3 billion was committed to the Melbourne metro tunnel, and the Princes Highway and East West were funded. However, since this Liberal federal government came to office, a mere 9.7 per cent of the federal infrastructure budget has been allocated to Victoria, even though Victoria comprises 25 per cent of the nation's population.
This lack of investment by the current government is having real effects in my community, which is experiencing population increases of an additional 12,000 residents per year. In Wyndham, we are in desperate need of rail funding. Passenger numbers on the Wyndham line alone are at an 11-year high. Thirteen of the 60 weekday morning train services on the Geelong line to Melbourne's CBD—that is, the regional rail link—reach maximum capacity by the time they reach the Wyndham stations. This congestion is only going to increase. Forward projections demonstrate that Wyndham's population will increase by 74 per cent to reach 435,000 residents by 2036, an increase of 185,000 people in 18 years.
People are using public transport. The regional rail link, funded by the Gillard government, demonstrates the power of investment in this space. With the regional rail link open, the Tarneit station is now the second busiest station to the Southern Cross station on V/Line. We have shown that the people moving into our communities will use public transport when and where it is provided. That is a critical point.
The recent Infrastructure Australia report Future Cities: Planning for our Growing Population demonstrates that we need to be looking holistically at where people live, where jobs are located and the transport networks which connect them. That is why the $5 billion commitment the Prime Minister suggested he was making to Victoria—although we saw in the budget that only $255 million was committed for the next four years—is really critical. The Prime Minister came to Victoria and announced that he was going to partner with the state government to do a $5.1 billion spend on a rail link between the airport and the city. That link needs to go to Sunshine. It needs to go to Sunshine to fit with Victoria's plans for the future. It needs to go to Sunshine so that it links with the regional rail link and opens up the possibility for a 20-minute train trip in the future. It is imperative that it does.
This Prime Minister likes to travel on the regional rail link when he goes down to Geelong to see the member for Corangamite. I would suggest to him that, next time he wants a photo op in Corangamite, he opens his eyes out the window as he travels and sees Melbourne's west growing—because between one month and the next there are thousands of people moving into our area and they need public transport. There are people moving to Ballarat and Bendigo and they need access to the city by public transport as well. There are people moving to Geelong. The whole of the west of Victoria is growing at a rapid rate, and this Prime Minister needs to get serious about supporting infrastructure for us.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (10:52): I am grateful to the member for Gellibrand for his motion and for giving us the opportunity to talk about the innovative leadership and unprecedented investment the Turnbull government is making in our urban infrastructure. The member for Gellibrand's motion rightly points out that the government has a leadership role to play in ensuring the productivity and livability of Australian cities. He is absolutely right. That's why this government introduced the concept of City Deals to this country and it is why it is rigorously pursuing them from Tasmania to Townsville. These deals are already making a difference to cities all over Australia and their impact will only grow as more come online.
The member for Gellibrand also draws attention to what he calls record funding commitments made by the previous Labor government. But the difference between the Turnbull government's record $75 billion infrastructure investment and the record commitments he refers to is that we can pay for ours. The Turnbull government's investment is fully funded as part of a responsible budget with a robust path back to surplus. The previous Labor government made a lot of so-called record funding commitments. But they also left a lot of record budget black holes. It is hard to imagine how Labor would have paid for public transport infrastructure in Victoria, or anywhere else, when it was short of $57 billion to pay for the NDIS. Sadly, on the evidence of the shadow Treasurer's budget reply, they are still at it. The simple truth is that you can't trust any funding commitment made by this shifty Leader of the Opposition and his Labor colleagues. You couldn't trust their fantasy double accounting then and you can't trust it now.
On the Sunshine Coast we have recently seen what the Turnbull government's genuine leadership on public transport infrastructure can achieve. The Sunshine Coast is a rapidly growing and dynamic region, with more than 200,000 people set to join us in the decades to come. However, when it comes to intercity public transport, we currently rely on a single-track rail line capable of supporting trains travelling at less than 60 kilometres an hour and situated many kilometres inland from our major population centres. Faster and more reliable rail transport between the Sunshine Coast and Brisbane would get more freight trucks and cars off our roads, free up capacity, improve safety on the Bruce Highway and give thousands of commuters more time with their families. In short, it would get commuters home more safely and sooner. That's why it has been one of my top priorities since before my election as the member for Fisher.
The 2018 federal budget included a new commitment of $390 million to duplicate the existing railway line between Beerburrum and Landsborough and to make further improvements up to Nambour. We've been calling for this duplication on the Sunshine Coast for decades. It is long overdue. When completed, it will allow for more regular trains for both passengers and freight and for a far more reliable service. However, the Turnbull government has gone far beyond simply delivering on the infrastructure we need now. The government has shown the leadership the member for Gellibrand looks for in vain from his own party and is planning for the future. In March, we announced that the North Coast Connect high-speed rail project was one of only three in the country selected by the government to receive millions of dollars in federal funding for a detailed business case. By upgrading the existing rail for high-speed trains and building a new line from Beerwah up the coast through Caloundra to Maroochydore, this project would offer travel times of as low as 45 minutes from our region to Brisbane.
The business case is expected to take a little more than a year to produce, and when it is published the project will become a prime candidate for funding under the Turnbull government's $10 billion National Rail Program. While we await publication of the business case, I'll be working hard with my friend the member for Fairfax and all my LNP team Queensland colleagues to lay the groundwork to ensure this project is a priority for federal and state government funding. With city deals being agreed all over the country and with a fully funded and unmatched investment of $75 billion in infrastructure nationwide, truly, no government could be said to have achieved greater leadership in promoting the productivity and livability of cities than the Turnbull government.
Mr MARLES (Corio) (10:57): I'll start by thanking the member for Gellibrand for putting this motion before the House. It gives an opportunity to a number of members of the House to talk about the critical issue of infrastructure, particularly in Melbourne's south-west and through to Geelong. The livability of Geelong is increasingly becoming one of the most important economic pillars of our region. Our north-facing bay, our raised peninsula and our proximity to the Surf Coast, all within a manageable distance of the Melbourne CBD, make Geelong a fantastic place to live. Thousands of people who currently live in Melbourne are making the decision to live in Geelong while still pursuing their employment in the greater Port Phillip Bay area. But, to make that proposition work, the link—the rail link and the transport links—between Geelong and Melbourne must be first-rate.
I was very pleased to be a part of the former Rudd-Gillard government which put in place the Regional Rail Link, and we were joined earlier by the member for Grayndler, who championed that. It was a $3.2 billion infrastructure development which preceded rather than followed urban development. In terms of the link between Geelong and Melbourne, it has been a game changer that has seen much greater frequency of travel and trains on that route.
In the last few weeks the Andrews state Labor government has put forward $50 million to look at the development of a fast rail link between Geelong and Melbourne. This would be utilising trains which would travel between 250 and 300 kilometres an hour. That would be transformative. It would see a trip from Geelong to Melbourne being done in under 40 minutes—faster, it turns out, than a helicopter. This would be a great moment in the history of Geelong's relationship with Melbourne, and it would be a critical boost to our economic growth.
Last month was a significant moment in the Turnbull government's governing of our nation. In announcing a $5 billion commitment—albeit off the books—to a rail link between the city and Tullamarine, it appeared that for the first time they had discovered that there was human habitation south of the Murray. Up until that point in time, the Turnbull government had committed just nine per cent of Australia's infrastructure funding to the state of Victoria, which was an absolute disgrace.
What is now being proposed is four options for a rail link between the city of Melbourne and Tullamarine. The decision that is made in respect of which of those routes is taken is absolutely critical. There is the very expensive tunnel route, which seems to be preferred by the government, based, it would appear, in part on their desire to have this funding off the budget, meaning they imagine there will be a revenue stream associated with this infrastructure build which will be worth more than the infrastructure build itself. It would seem that profits are driving this decision rather than community infrastructure.
The alternative is the route through Sunshine. The route through Sunshine is a cheaper route but will connect the link between the city and Tullamarine with the existing rail links that are being developed around Victoria, including the Regional Rail Link from Geelong to Melbourne and what in the future would be the fast rail link between Geelong and Melbourne. In other words, if we are to see a fast rail link between Geelong and Melbourne, the Sunshine route must be chosen as the preferred option for the development of the rail link between the city and Tullamarine airport. It will also then enable a much faster link between Geelong and Tullamarine.
There is a clear choice in terms of what is best for Geelong in those routes. The state government have made that choice very clear. They are saying their preferred option is the Sunshine route. Right now, we actually need to see a decision made and a preference expressed by this government. The member for Corangamite, who has just joined us, is a key player in that, as she represents, as a member of the government in this place, the interests of Geelong within the government. It is absolutely critical for the member for Corangamite to make it completely clear that she supports the Sunshine route as distinct from any of the other routes that are possible, because if the member for Corangamite does not make that clear then she will have sold Geelong out, and it's absolutely essential that the Turnbull government make that clear in this build.
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (11:02): I am delighted to stand and speak about this motion today, the threshold theme of which I don't disagree with: the importance of ensuring we have productive and livable cities in Australia. I think both sides of the House certainly share that broader vision. It is extraordinary when you think about how quickly Australia's population is growing and how quickly Australia is ageing. When I first read this motion, it made me think of that Peter Allen song from about 1980, I Still Call Australia Home and those lines—and I'm sure I'll misquote them:
I've been to cities that never close down
From New York to Rio and old London town.
To think that the likes of London at the stage when Peter Allen wrote that song were barely larger than Sydney is today, with over five million people! Australia indeed is growing quickly, with large cities.
Where this motion falls down drastically, though, is the typical politicisation and a baseless argument when it comes to fact, suggesting that the Labor Party actually has a good track record on infrastructure. If you look at the spend, you see that through the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era there was an average of $6 billion a year spent on infrastructure. The coalition government has spent $7.6 billion a year on infrastructure. I understand that those opposite aren't very good at economics. I get that, and I want to cut them some slack, but $7.6 billion is, in fact, more money than $6 billion. There is $1.6 billion more, on average, spent on infrastructure. What is extraordinary about this is I'm comparing this to a Labor era of an absolute spendathon. It was an era where they overreached with their stimulus post-GFC and still they underspent on critical infrastructure for our cities.
In contrast, look at what this government has done and also what it forecasts to do. It has a $75 billion infrastructure plan for the years ahead. This motion was based on Victoria, where $7.8 billion of major projects for Victoria were announced in this year's budget. If you go up towards Queensland, my home state, and you look at the region for the Sunshine Coast, we scored big time in this budget with a trifecta of $800 million for section D on the Bruce Highway, $880 million between Pine Rivers and the Sunshine Coast on the Bruce Highway, and, of course, that beautiful $390 million for the North Coast line for upgrades between Beerburrum and Nambour. That's $2 billion just for the broader region of the Sunshine Coast because the coalition government understands the importance of investing.
There is another point here, and you can see it through the motion. When it comes to ensuring that our cities have the vital infrastructure they need, it isn't just about 'show us the money'. Even though, yes, we have spent more and invested more than Labor, this motion is just another example of a long wish list—show us the money, the money, the money, the money. Such is the complexity around managing the growth of our population, amidst a time when we have a knowledge based economy that is integrated with the global economy, that we can't just throw money at it. That is why we have crafted a Smart Cities Plan. It is one plan that ensures that we have smart investment, smart policy and smart technology. Smart investment prioritises projects, takes long-term investments that also take into account value capture and leverages the strength of the federal balance sheet. Smart policies ensure we have not just three tiers of government working in concert in our major cities—whether they be metro or regional—but also three sectors, being business, government and community. It is through this smart approach that we can continue to be ahead of the curve and invest in infrastructure to ensure population growth does not overtake it.
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (11:08): I rise to support the motion put forward by the member for Gellibrand, and I commend him for bringing this motion forward in this place. The motion before us seeks to do two things. It acknowledges the key role of government in ensuring the productivity and liveability not just of our cities but of our regions as well. It notes the need for further investment in rail infrastructure in Melbourne's west, particularly as the proposed airport rail link holds great potential to improve the quality of life for many in the west of Melbourne but also in our regions.
We've heard from the member for Corio about the impact on Geelong. I want to talk about the impact on my electorate of Ballarat. It's really important that our regions aren't forgotten when it comes to infrastructure funding. That's particularly vital as the Victorian and federal governments start work towards the Melbourne airport railway link. Like regional centres all around Australia, residents of Ballarat rely on our transport links with major cities so that we can travel for work, for play and for study. It's these strong transport connections that make our regional centres such a terrific place to live. It is regions like Ballarat where you can enjoy the peace and pace of a regional lifestyle while still enjoying fantastic schools and health services and living a comfortable distance from Melbourne, if you are able to find work there as well. However, if we're able to continue to reduce the commuting distance between cities like mine—that is, Ballarat—we need to keep ahead of the growth. When you consider growth in Melbourne's west in particular, which has been highlighted in the recent infrastructure Australia report Future Cities: planning for our growing population, we see that we are beginning to run out of time.
Projects such as the Regional Rail Link have shown what a committed government can do for regional Australians. The previous Labor government put $3.2 billion into this project, helping untangle the regional trains as they came into Melbourne. Projects like this meant that we could rely on the trains to get us to work and home and improve the commute.
Regional Victorians do need more projects like this. There is an opportunity with the Melbourne Airport link to do more than just connect the CBD to the airport. Through proper planning we can connect the city with the airport, but we can also connect Ballarat and our other regional centres with the airport as well and we can better connect Ballarat with the CBD.
An alignment through Sunshine is certainly my preferred route. It's the preferred route of the Victorian government and, I think, pretty clearly anyone listening to this message will hear it's the preferred route of all of the Labor MPs here who represent those areas. The alignment through Sunshine will allow the new tracks to take strain off the existing western suburbs train network, already struggling to meet demand, and this will result in a superior service for residents in and through Melbourne's west and for those further beyond along the Ballarat line who come through that way. Commuters boarding trains in Wendouree, Ballarat, Ballan, Bacchus Marsh and, hopefully, eventually a new station at Warrenheip, will be able to reach their workplaces in Melbourne with far greater ease. Similarly, residents from the regions will also be able to change at Sunshine for airport services, better linking these towns with the nation's wider economy. That's a route in itself. Mostly now people have to either drive or catch the terrific shuttle bus service, but it takes between two and 2½ hours just to get to the airport, where a train service would be a much shorter and much easier commute for people to get out to the airport. The traffic congestion around Melbourne Airport is increasingly difficult for many of us to navigate, let alone the cost of long-term parking of cars at Melbourne airport. A train service would be hugely beneficial to the economy of my region.
It's not often that such a possibility arises from a single rail project, and, when it does, government needs to act to make the most of it. Sadly, unfortunately, this government, despite what it has said in many press releases, has not actually acted. In the days before the budget the government told the Victorian media it would invest $5 billion in the rail line to the airport, and the first the Victorian state government heard about it was through a letter from the Prime Minister's office that had arrived only after the plan had already been released to the media, so it didn't actually talk to the Victorian government about the preferred route. But what the budget papers clearly show is that this looks like it's going to be an equity contribution, which, frankly, is not going to stack up with this project. We know that public transport projects don't usually make money. Neither the cost of the construction nor the capital investment can be covered by operating revenue, and, frankly, I think the way in which the government has gone about putting this so-called project together has been selling the Victorian people short.
I want to reiterate my support for the Sunshine connection to the airport link, but we do actually need to see the money for this project.
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (11:13): When I first saw this motion on the Notice Paper, I thought it might be that the Labor Party was coming in here to apologise for all their failures in infrastructure throughout Australia. After all, what the Labor Party could tell us about infrastructure the Babylonians could tell us about proper treatment of the Cretans. I come from a part of Sydney that has three out of the 10 most congested roads in Australia and the state Labor opposition has decided even before the project has begun that they will cancel the first piece of proper road infrastructure in my part of the area before it has even started. What do Luke Foley and the New South Wales Labor opposition have to say about the road tunnel Beaches Link? They call it a vanity project because that's what they think about infrastructure in New South Wales. They're so sick and tired of cancelling their own projects that they've started cancelling our projects instead.
This is a party that is wedded to cancellations. When you think about the previous state government in New South Wales, all you can think of is a history of incompetence, ineptitude and cancellations of infrastructure from one end of the state to the other. The one piece of infrastructure that they deigned to build was the Macquarie Park railway, which was a contract signed by the previous Fahey government. But they couldn't leave that alone; they decided to halve the length and double the cost of it. I mean, this is a party that cannot deliver on anything. The New South Wales Labor Party under Bob Carr, Morris Iemma, Kristina Keneally and, of course, Nathan Rees—let's not forget him—announced 28 infrastructure projects, but cancelled 32. In fact, they were so keen to cancel projects that sometimes they didn't have time to actually announce them.
What was Bob Carr's answer to all of this? 'Sydney's full. Everyone leave Sydney, because we can't be bothered actually building, much less funding, an infrastructure project in Sydney.' They cannot bring themselves to actually make the lives of people in cities better off. But there are some pieces of infrastructure that they'll build. They were very keen on starting coalmines in New South Wales as long as you happened to be a member of the New South Wales cabinet or a friend of someone in the New South Wales cabinet. This is the state branch that spawned Bob Carr, Mark Latham, Ian Macdonald, Joe Tripodi, Eddie Obeid, yet they have the gall to come in here and lecture Australia about how they need better infrastructure.
Compare that to the New South Wales state government at the moment. It's delivering $77 billion worth of state transport infrastructure, and has plans to deliver another $111 billion over the next four years. This includes Sydney Metro Northwest, which will be extended underneath the harbour all the way to Bankstown, which will move 45,000 people an hour on driverless, state-of-the-art trains run by the same company that runs the train system in Hong Kong, compared to what Sydney Trains currently does, which is 25,000 people an hour. They're building NorthConnex, a piece of infrastructure that was first planned for Sydney in the 1950s. They're building WestConnex, another piece of infrastructure that was first planned in the 1950s, but never, not once, did the state Labor Party in New South Wales get anywhere close to doing it. Beaches Link—which is now being planned for the Northern Beaches to alleviate the pain and suffering of tens of thousands of families on the Northern Beaches, families that Luke Foley and the New South Wales Labor Party don't care about—was initially planned in the 1950s, and what did Labor do? I'll tell what they did. Neville Wran sold off the road corridors so that it couldn't be built, and now it has to go underground.
When you think at a national level about what Labor delivered in terms of transport infrastructure, you think of pink batts and school halls. A lot of good that did to alleviate the suffering of people who could not get home to see their families and who could not get to work on time and the stress and anxiety that the congestion in our major cities is causing. And what's Mark Latham's answer? Mark Latham says we should tell foreigners to go away. He has no answer in terms of how to alleviate the problem of people who are actually living in our cities right now. The New South Wales Liberal Party is doing it and so are we at a federal level. We are investing a record $75 billion from 2019 to 2027 in air, rail and other transport infrastructure to improve the lives of all Australians. (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 a later hour.
Mining
Employment
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (11:18): I move:
that this House recognises that:
(1) the Australian Labor Party has abandoned workers in Queensland, to chase Green votes in Victoria;
(2) Opposition Leader Bill Shorten:
(a) tells workers in Queensland he is pro coal, and in Victoria that he is against it; and
(b) promised green activist Geoff Cousins that he would tear up the approvals for the Adani Carmichael mine;
(3) the opening up of the Galilee Basin has the potential to create over 16,000 jobs in Queensland;
(4) the Australian Labor Party is gambling with the integrity of Australia and has created a sovereign risk; and
(5) Australia should utilise its natural resources and encourage investment in our mining sector to create much needed jobs for regional areas.
Not since Benedict Arnold has there been a betrayal as blatant and cutting as Labor's abandonment of the working man and woman. Benedict Arnold became the shining American symbol of treason after he switched sides and led the British into battle against the very soldiers he had previously commanded—but the British struggled to trust him. Just as traitorous is a Labor Party that has stopped fighting for workers and has gone to join the job-destroying Green socialists. But even the far, far left struggles to trust Labor's shifty leader. The workers in this country are badly in need of support, as they are being denied great opportunities to put bread on the table, to get ahead and to give their families a future.
The Carmichael coal project, more than 300 kilometres and a mountain range away from the coastline, and even further away from the Great Barrier Reef, is waiting to create 10,000 jobs. The proponents already employ 800 people. The project will contribute billions of dollars in royalties to the Queensland government. As expected, the Carmichael coalmine enjoys widespread support across North Queensland and Central Queensland from industry groups, local mayors—including Labor-leading mayors—and mums and dads who want to earn a living in communities that will be directly affected by that project. North Queenslanders who don't support the project are principally the extreme Green groups and Labor MPs.
Actual members of the Labor Party support the Carmichael coal project because their livelihoods depend on mining and industry as well. But when those rank and file Labor members send their MPs to Canberra or to Brisbane, those MPs suddenly lose their voice and their spine. They stop supporting Central and North Queensland because their party leaders, based in capital cities, seize the political opportunity to sell out jobs and miners in North and Central Queensland. The state Labor government has feigned support for as long as it could for this project, has finally come out against it and has promised to reject any federal government financing facility offering the very help that the Queensland government had previously requested.
The final nail in the coffin for miners in mining communities was when their shifty leader dumped any and all support for miners to prevent losing the Batman by-election to the Greens. When he's in Queensland, the shifty Leader of the Opposition tries to create the illusion that he supports the coal industry, which is the opposite of what he says in his home state of Victoria and exactly the opposite of what he told the former president of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Geoff Cousins, on his Green activist funded tour of North Queensland. While enjoying a $17,000 holiday, including a reef cruise and scenic flights around North Queensland at the expense of the greenies, the Labor leader met with the foundation's former president. In that meeting, the shifty Leader of the Labour Party promised to withdraw his party's support for jobs that would be created by the Carmichael mine. Only when he was about to be outed by the media did that Leader of the Opposition make a shifty update to the members' registers of interests to declare his activist-funded holiday. Whether induced by that free trip or not, The Leader of the Opposition kept his promise to the extreme Greens and pulled all Labor support for jobs when it looked like the Greens might beat their star candidate in the Batman by-election and so now North Queensland is at this crossroads.
After suffering four years of downturn or more in the resources sector, economic prosperity is there and there is more on the horizon. It is within reach. The Adani project is just the first cab off the rank when it comes to opening up the Galilee Basin. Waiting in the wings are several other projects, including the Alpha North coalmine, twice the size of the Carmichael mine. The Galilee Basin stands to create more than 16,000 direct jobs and tens of billions of dollars in royalties. What stands in the way is more than just a traditional collection of radical ratbags opposing any development anywhere at any cost. Miners and families whose livelihoods depend on the mining industry, on coal ports, on other industries that rely on coal now face a wall of extremism from the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Worldwide Fund for Nature, Greenpeace and GetUp!, which are all queuing up to plunge their knife into the workers, like the Roman senators assassinating Julius Caesar. As the Labor Party sink their blade under the blue collar of the honest workers of North Queensland and Central Queensland, they may feel the ultimate betrayal just like Julius Caesar did. But instead of asking, 'Et tu, Brute?', they're asking, 'Even you, shifty Shorten?'
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): You will withdraw that comment.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: I withdraw 'even you, shifty Leader of the Opposition'.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you withdraw unreservedly?
Mr CHRISTENSEN: I withdraw unreservedly.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is it seconded?
Ms Landry: I second the motion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the member for Capricornia reserve her right to speak?
Ms Landry: I reserve my right to speak.
Mr CLARE (Blaxland) (11:24): I have got to hand it to the member for Dawson. He must have a hide like a rhinoceros to come in here and move a motion like that after the budget that his side handed down. He talks about the abandonment of workers in Central and North Queensland. That's exactly what this budget did. There's nothing in the budget for the workers of Central and North Queensland. It's almost like the further you live away from the Prime Minister's mansion on Sydney Harbour, the less you got in this budget out of this government, because those workers got nothing out of this budget. All they got was cuts—cuts to schools, cuts to hospitals, cuts to universities, cuts to TAFE.
Here are the facts. They're ripping $100 million out of schools from Gladstone to Cape York. They've pulled $32 million out of hospitals in Central and North Queensland. They've taken $38 million from Central Queensland University and $36 million from James Cook University. And, on top of that, they're taking $270 million out of TAFE in this budget alone. In the last five years, the government have ripped $3 billion out of TAFE, and they've got the hide to come in here and talk about the abandonment of workers.
They talk about abandoning workers. Who do you think trains workers? TAFE—and they're ripping $270 million out of it. They're ripping the guts out of it in this budget. And what do you get as a result of that? There are 9,000 fewer apprentices currently training in Central and North Queensland because of their cuts to TAFE. On top of that, there are 36,000 people in Central and North Queensland today who work earning penalty rates, people who potentially are earning less today than they were last year because the government wouldn't step in to stop them getting their penalty rates cut.
They talk tough. They come in here and talk tough about jobs. But in reality they're about as useless as an ashtray on a motorbike. They do nothing when it comes to supporting the people they purport to represent. There is nothing for them in this budget. There are 40,000 people in Central and North Queensland who don't have a job at the moment, people who are struggling to pay the bills, struggling to pay the rent, struggling to pay their mortgage, and one mine is not going to employ all of them.
We need a lot more projects than that if we're going to get the economic development we need and if we're going to get those people jobs. We need things like widening the channel to expand the port of Townsville, building Rookwood Weir, extending the port access road in Gladstone, building the flood levee in Rocky, building the next stage of the Mackay Ring Road, extending the Bruce Highway in Cairns up to Cairns Airport, upgrading the Rockhampton to Yeppoon road, installing hydropower at the Burdekin or making sure that Townsville's got the water it needs for decades to come. But there's none of this in this budget.
And here's the biggest kick in the guts. Three years ago, to much fanfare, they announced the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, five billion bucks to invest in infrastructure in the north, and guess what? Three years later, not one cent has been invested in an infrastructure project yet in Queensland—three wasted years, three years where they could have invested in projects to create jobs in areas where unemployment's high, and nothing's happened. No wonder the people of Central and North Queensland feel abandoned by the government.
I was in Gladstone last week. I was at a coffee shop. I asked people there, 'Does anybody think we should give $17 billion to the big banks?' And—surprise, surprise—no-one did. But that's what the mob over there want to do. They want to give a $17 billion handout to the big banks.
Well, it's not what we'll do. If we're fortunate enough to earn the trust and support of the Australian people at the next election, I tell you what: we'll reverse the cuts they've made to schools and hospitals in Central and North Queensland. We'll remove TAFE fees for 100,000 students who want to do courses in areas where we've got skills shortages at the moment, and we'll build the infrastructure projects that I've just talked about. We'll do all of that and more, and we can do that because, unlike the Liberal Party and the National Party, we're not going to give a $17 billion tax cut to the big banks.
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Chief Nationals Whip) (11:29): I would like to rebut the previous speaker's comments. Since being elected in 2013, I have put over $1 billion in projects in Central Queensland. I have to laugh about the hypocrisy of Labor going on about Rookwood Weir, when it took over 600 days for a business case to be done and, once the federal government put $175 million on the table, they still then said, 'Oh, we need money for operational costs.' Well, I say: let's get on with the job.
As politicians we don't often talk about things that set the world on fire. We talk about jobs, industry, health services and education. These are things most people would consider not exciting but necessary. The other thing they think is necessary is to be consistent. We currently have a fellow who sits in this place who dismisses the desire of the people for consistency. This man prefers to take a tailored approach to public commentary. He can give you exactly what you want, depending on where he is when he says it. Some have labelled this approach 'shifty'; some have labelled it 'unbelievable'. This is someone who can visit the mining regions of Central Queensland, declare his support for the local workers and then, just days later, pop up in Victoria, in a by-election, declaring he does not support the expanding coal industry in Central Queensland and even offering to shut down projects in the Galilee Basin if he were to become Prime Minister. 'How can this be? you may ask. 'Surely they would be caught out in this world of modern communications,' and you would be right.
The good people in my electorate of Capricornia are fed up with being strung along by someone who would like to be Prime Minister but cannot even be straight with those he hopes to receive support from. It takes a certain kind of person to sell out the jobs of the workers he professes to be fighting for. Central Queensland is a vital cog in the machine that is the national economy. It is home to energy, mining, sugar and the beef capital of Australia. We understand how these industries work. Being responsible for those who work within these industries gives one a particularly privileged and detailed understanding of the industries that, quite literally, keep the lights on and the wheels turning.
I always enjoy my trips to Canberra because I get to witness some of the greatest acts of hypocrisy one can imagine. For those opposite to have the audacity to cry out in the name of inequality and workers' rights while they systematically undermine the ability for everyday people to get a job is something to behold. Shutting down the coal industry would force thousands into unemployment. Those opposite have no answers to this economic devastation. You can't solar-panel your way out of that one. In Central Queensland we have two major coal basins: the Bowen Basin in the east and, tucked behind it to the west, the Galilee Basin. The natural resources within these basins are immense and provide enormous benefit to the state and national economies and to the government's budget. The Bowen Basin is a household name in Queensland, as it should be throughout the rest of the country as well. The coal seams of the Bowen Basin provide for thousands of direct jobs and billions of dollars in gross domestic product. These coal seams are more than that to me, though. They are the basis for thousands of families and dozens of small communities across the region. These coal seams do not just create a carbon-emitting hole in the ground; they create a home for so many Central Queenslanders.
When it comes to important items like national security, foreign aid and natural disaster recovery, we will tie ourselves in knots and abandon internal ideologies to ensure a bipartisan approach, because these things are considered appropriate. Why is it that we cannot prioritise economic advantage for rural Australians? As a National and passionate regional member, I have seen firsthand how much can be achieved by pulling appropriate levers to unlock the economic potential for the people in the bush—the real battlers, the men and women of the weatherboard and iron. Why is it that we cannot prioritise bipartisan support for these people and their lives? I say to those opposite: go to towns like Clermont and Alpha where the projects are already having a positive effect and tell them they don't deserve an opportunity for a better life; tell them while you sip on your coal powered soy lattes that their jobs are somehow immoral and must end. I know you won't because you know that to do so would be hugely offensive. Continuing the same line in parliament or on the hustings is no different. If you don't have the gumption to say it to their faces, don't say it in this place. Bipartisanship is reserved for important issues. What could be more important than the economic development of our region? I will keep fighting for them and I hope that some of those opposite can join me in fighting to give these people a real chance.
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (11:34): If the member for Dawson thinks he can stand in this place and talk about jobs for regional Queensland whilst he and the Turnbull government have repeatedly failed to deliver jobs for regional Queensland, then he has another thing coming. May I remind the member for Dawson, whose electorate also includes parts of Townsville, about some real facts around the dreadful state of jobs in Townsville. Since the LNP came to power, unemployment in Townsville has more than doubled. Townsville's unemployment rate when Labor left federal government in 2013 was lower than both the state and the national average. Now Townsville's unemployment rate is higher than the state average and almost double that of the national average.
Under the previous Labor government, manufacturing in Townsville was soaring. When Labor Left federal government in 2013, more than 8,400 people were employed in the manufacturing industry in Townsville. Under the Abbott-Turnbull governments, manufacturing has nosedived, with job losses of more than 3,000. There were 442 fewer construction industry business registrations in 2017, compared with 2012 figures. That's a loss of 153 retail business registrations in the same period.
Then there are the massive cuts that are being made by the LNP government to the public sector—110 ATO jobs in Townsville are gone, 50 Defence jobs are gone, 40 aviation jobs at No. 38 Squadron are gone, 19 CSIRO jobs are gone, and 30 customs jobs are gone. There has been job cut after job cut under the LNP. Whilst the government is cutting jobs in Townsville they're giving big business and the banks an $80 billion tax cut.
The member for Dawson is a better friend to the big banks than he is to the workers in his electorate, particularly in Townsville. Does the member for Dawson even know what projects will deliver jobs for Townsville? Let me inform him of three vital job-creating projects that Townsville needs: (1) long-term water security infrastructure; (2) energy infrastructure to lower the skyrocketing costs of electricity that have occurred under the Turnbull government; and (3) the port redevelopment, which will deliver more than $580 million in benefits to our regional community. The reality is that the member for Dawson and the Turnbull government have not funded one of these projects in their budget—not one cent. These projects will create jobs, deliver investment and ensure a boost to our local economy.
Labor understands regional Queensland, and that is why Labor is delivering real commitments. Labor understands the importance of these particular projects, and that is why we have committed funding to every single one of these vital projects. Unlike the member for Dawson, I have a track record of standing up and fighting for my community and actually delivering job-creating projects. I fought hard for the large infrastructure projects Townsville needs to ensure that our city has water and energy security. I fought hard for Labor's commitment of $200 million for hydroelectricity on the Burdekin Falls Dam, which will deliver 150 construction jobs. I fought hard for Labor's commitment of $100 million to ensure Townsville's long-term water security, and I fought hard for Labor's commitment of $75 million for the port expansion.
Where was the member for Dawson on these projects? The evidence is clear in the last budget: he is absolutely nowhere to be seen. The simple fact of the matter is that he has been unable to secure these three vital commitments from his government, so he has not delivered jobs for the Townsville community. The member for Dawson is Canberra's man in Dawson, not Dawson's man in Canberra.
I will always fight for jobs in my local community. Labor's plan for jobs in regional Queensland is clear, and if the member for Dawson can't match Labor's infrastructure commitments, then at the next election there will be another job loss in regional Queensland. I dare say it will be the member for Dawson, who has failed to deliver jobs for Townsville and regional Queensland, that will lose his own job.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (11:38): It was very interesting to hear the member for Herbert waxing lyrical there, but not once during her contribution did she say, 'I support the mine and I support the workers in my electorate.' Not once did she say that. I see the member for Herbert leaves the chamber—no wonder. We come to this chamber to represent, stand up and fight for the people of our electorates. There we saw an example of a member betraying her own electorate. One would think, out of anyone in this parliament, it would be the member for Herbert that would stand up and say, 'I support the coal in the Galilee Basin', yet we didn't hear a peep from the member for Herbert.
We heard my good friend the member for Blaxland talk about how he's going to spend all this money. I'm sure what the people of North Queensland want is what every other Australian wants. They don't want government handouts; they want economic opportunity, and that's what that coal basin provides. It provides those people with economic opportunity to create real wealth, to pay royalties to the Queensland state government, and to pay payroll tax and tax on company profits to the federal government to pay for all those things that we need. Yet we have the Labor Party coming in, turning their back on the economic opportunities that this offers to their constituents.
We hear so much from the Labor Party members about how there's no demand for this coal. Let's just look at a few figures. Currently around the world there are 467 coal plants under construction in 35 nations. There are a further 903 in 50 nations—
Mr Conroy: Wrong.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: I hear the member there saying that is wrong. That is coal plants. It is true that for some of those numbers it might be a generator in one coal production plant. We know that in China, for example, the 220 under construction equate to about 20,000 gigawatts of electricity. We're talking about the equivalent of 100 Liddells under construction in China today. We've just seen information released for the Middle East. They have 44 gigawatts of electricity capacity under construction. That's twice Australia's existing capacity. They are building coal plants even in places like Dubai. There is the recently announced Hassan coal plant, a $2.3 billion investment in Dubai, because they know that they can have coal. When we look at the Resources and Energy Quarterly released only a few days ago, what do they say about thermal coal? 'Prices have pushed higher, as strong demand dominates the market.' Yet we have Labor Party members coming in here and telling us that thermal coal is in rapid decline. Let me read that again: 'Prices have pushed higher, as strong demand dominates the market.' That's the report on thermal coal. Exports from Australia are set to increase under these predictions. If we look further, to predictions by the US Energy Information Administration out to 2050, they predict that to keep up with the expected demand for coal we will need to increase our exports of coal between 30 and 40 per cent. The demand is there.
The question for the Labor Party is: do they support regional Queensland? Do they support jobs in that area, or are they prepared to sell them out for any inner city Green votes? Unfortunately, we've seen the answer from the performance of the member for Herbert and others in this chamber today. Green preferences are more important to them than standing up for workers' jobs in Northern Queensland. This is appalling. What an appalling performance we have seen here today!
We in the coalition know that that black coal seam that runs down our eastern seaboard is one thing that gives our nation a competitive advantage. If a project has all the environmental approvals in place, it should be supported by both houses of this parliament, especially when it will create jobs and real wealth in this nation. The failure of the Labor Party to support this is an absolute disgrace. It's an abandonment of the constituents of Northern Queensland.
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (11:43): I rise proudly to oppose this motion, because it is all crocodile tears from the government, who don't care a single iota for a single coalminer in this country. I have had the privilege of representing two seats in this parliament, the first named after a Lambton coalminer who went on to lead the Australian Labor Party, and the second named after Lieutenant Shortland, who discovered coal in Australia, in Newcastle. So I'm proud to represent a coal region. I'm proud to represent the 18,000 coalminers who call the Hunter home, their families and the communities who depend upon them. I'm proud of that, and I back that up with actions, like every other Labor member who represents a coal community in this country, and unlike those on the other side, who use them as cheap debating props and a high-visibility opportunity but go missing when real action is required.
I've never seen a coalition MP at the northern coalfields miners memorial, which is held every year to commemorate the 1,800 men, women and children as young as 11 who have died mining coal in the northern districts of New South Wales, even though the members for New England and Parkes represent northern districts coalmines. I've never seen a single member of the coalition stand up for mine safety in this place. I've done a Hansard search over the last three parliaments. Not a single coalition member has talked about the black lung plague that is returning to this country, where we've seen around 30 miners in Queensland and one in the Hunter diagnosed with black lung. Over the last three parliaments, not a single coalition member has talked about mining deaths at all. The simple truth is that they do not care one iota for miners in this country. They use them as props; then they disappear when there is an opportunity to actually protect them.
The truth is that one of the greatest protections for miners in this country is strong unions. Strong unions drive safer workplaces, but those on the other side are intent on weakening unions, because they are intent on weakening workplace safety. You just have to look at their constant attacks on the CFMEU, of which the mining and energy division is a strong proponent.
Government members interjecting—
Mr CONROY: See, they arc up now! When you talk about defending mine safety and you're intent on making sure that coalmines are safe, they arc up—because the truth is that this is all about culture wars from those opposite. They use them as cheap debating tricks, but, when it comes to protecting coalminers and making sure they can come home at night, they don't care. They don't care one iota—and they flee the place. The member for Hughes is leaving the chamber because he knows I'm telling the truth.
Let's return to some facts, because those on the other side never see a fact. They never have any familiarity with a fact. The truth is that the seaborne thermal coal trade is declining. The trade for seaborne thermal coal, which is the market for the Galilee Basin, if it ever gets off the ground, and the market for most of the Hunter coal exports, is declining. It peaked in 2013 and has declined every year since. Australian coal exports have increased during that time, as other countries have switched from Vietnamese coal or Indonesian coal to Australian coal, but that market is declining. Subsidising new coalmines in the Galilee Basin threatens 18,000 coalmining jobs in my region, the Hunter, because, if you subsidise new competition into a declining market, it will inevitably lead to declining prices for coal. That has been attested to by the CEO of the Newcastle coal port, the largest coal export port in the world. They have said that subsidising Adani and new Galilee Basin mines will undermine Newcastle coal exports, will drive down prices and will threaten the 18,000 coalmining jobs in my community.
I'm proud to stand up for those jobs. I'm proud to say that we shouldn't subsidise new coalmines in the Galilee Basin, because it threatens my coalmining jobs. I'm proud to stand up for this community. I'm proud to stand up for coalminers so that they come home safely every night from work. I'm proud to stand up and speak in this House in opposition to the recurrence of black lung in the Australian coalmining industry. I'm proud to stand up with all my Labor colleagues and oppose any diminution of coalmining safety, which is what those opposite stand for. They stand for that when they attack the CFMEU. They stand for that when they undermine safety in the Australian coalmining industry. See through their crocodile tears; see through all their cant and hypocrisy and ask: what do they actually do around coalmines? They do nothing but debate them.
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (11:48): I thank the member for Shortland for that contribution, although I don't agree with him sticking up for the CFMEU, given John Setka's record of being charged 59 times for different offences, including 15 counts of assaulting five different police officers. This is the same CFMEU leader who has done jail time, and the member for Shortland comes in here and wants to stick up for him and the CFMEU. Give me a break!
I rise today to speak in support of jobs, affordable electricity and freedom of choice—three core government responsibilities that Labor seem vehemently opposed to—and in support of this private member's bill. The member for Dawson moved that this House recognise:
that:
(1) the Australian Labor Party has abandoned workers in Queensland—
and indeed they have—
to chase Green votes in Victoria.
He moved that the House recognise that the opposition leader—
tells workers in Queensland he is pro coal—
and then in Victoria when he's down there campaigning in Batman says that he's against it and that he has—
promised green activist Geoff Cousins that he would tear up the approvals for—
coalworkers at the Carmichael mine. Mind you, he did that after a free trip worth $17,000 to the Great Barrier Reef for the Leader of the Opposition. The opening up of the Galilee Basin, according to the member for Dawson:
… has the potential to create over 16,000 jobs in Queensland;
(4) the Australian Labor Party is gambling with the integrity of Australia and has created a sovereign risk; and
(5)Australia should utilise its natural resources and encourage investment in our mining sector to create much needed jobs for regional areas.
When it comes to jobs, the coalition has a strong record. Jobs and growth is what we took to the people at the last election, and we have delivered. We have continued to deliver. We have delivered the strongest ever recorded jobs growth, of more than 1,000 new jobs a day—that is some 415,000 in the last 12 months. You can't lie with statistics. These figures, of course, are great news for every Australian, including the people in Townsville and the people in Petrie, and including all Australians who want the dignity of a job. They are also great news for the economic strength of our nation.
The Turnbull coalition government's idea of free enterprise reward for effort and government living within its means has resulted in over one million new jobs since 2013. This is very important. The members opposite talk about lower taxes. We 100 per cent support lower taxes. We support $140 million in lower taxes for individuals. We support another $37 million in lower taxes for businesses because statistics show that, since we've done that for businesses up to $50 million, 415,000 jobs have been created, 75 per cent of which are full-time. We don't support the $200 billion in new taxes that the opposition leader and the Labor Party want to impose on Australians in the next 10 years—that is $20 billion a year—which will affect a lot of people. We don't support that.
Labor have no plans for jobs and growth. All they know how to do is spend and tax and bind up everything in red and green tape, crippling small and family businesses and our farmers. In fact, Labor's ideas of what is fair and equal mean they put environmental ideology before people, control before freedom, and, as we've seen from the member for Shortland, unions before jobs, all of which result in division, debt and economic destruction. Furthermore, Labor are anti coal. They have sacrificed Australia's power bills at the altar of environmentalism. Today, the shadow minister, the assistant minister to the shadow Treasurer, the member for Whitlam, called people who support coal 'coal dinosaurs'. These are the people that the member for Shortland says that is sticking up for.
I do support the members opposite. I note, too, that the Queensland government is not only abandoning workers in coal but also abandoning farmers through the draconian new laws that it has just put in. Not only is Labor blocking a job-creating mine but it is attacking our farmers in Queensland, which is shameful as well. The member for Herbert should remember that the Palaszczuk government is in power up there and has done nothing for jobs. (Time expired)
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (11:54): I'm happy to speak on this motion on mining and jobs put forward by the member for Dawson, who sits in Canberra as a National Party MP. I note that we had one other National Party MP speak and then we had a Liberal from New South Wales and a Liberal from inner city Brisbane speaking on this motion. It indicates how the Nationals in Queensland have completely changed. I grew up in country Queensland. When I was a kid, the Nationals who stood down in parliament were farmers. But look at them now. Among the MPs and senators representing Queensland you've got bankers, journalists, accountants and economists. There are no more farmers who actually understand the bush.
Let's look at what Labor has done. I know that the National Party has forgotten its roots, but let's look at what Labor has done for the bush. I represent an inner-city seat. As far as I'm concerned as a marginal MP, we should be focusing on the inner city, but no. What did we do? We rolled out the NBN. Who benefits from that? Businesses in the bush. Who benefits from the NDIS? The bush. It actually went into Townsville first in Queensland. And of course there was needs based funding for schools—a Labor Party policy. Who benefits most from that? National Party electorates. Every school in the bush benefited. The Labor Party actually has a strong, long history of investing in the bush, but we see the Nationals in Queensland have deserted their base. There are no more farmers in the National Party, no more farmers in Queensland having a voice down in Canberra. It's unbelievable. I think even the Leader of the Opposition in the state parliament is a lawyer from Brisbane. So gone are the days when the National Party used to actually have a voice and a connection to the bush.
We see the former journalist the member for Dawson putting in this motion—yet another example of talking tough down here in Canberra but, when he gets back to the bush, walking soft. They don't understand the bush. I would put the member for Shortland or the member for Hunter, who actually understand the bush, forward any day, because they understand what farmers want. So we see that the Queensland LNP members are putting all of their eggs into the proposal from the member for Hughes. He's putting out one proposal: investing in coal. Of course we have the member for Warringah's idea of nationalising a coal-fired power station and then selling it off. He's a long-term sleeper cell from the socialists, obviously! He's been working on this for 30 or 40 years, letting the workers take over the means of production, and then they'll work on the banks! They'll nationalise the banks. It is unbelievable that these are the economic lights those opposite are following.
I know that capital makes its own decisions, and what is capital doing in terms of investing in thermal coal projects? No-one is stopping capital from investing in thermal coal projects. Instead, capital is shying away from it? Why? You can look at the spot prices, but it is also because of competition. Obviously, I would prefer Queensland coalmines to do this, but we have supply coming out of the Hunter that means that thermal coal is not going to be benefiting from a billion dollars in taxpayer funds. We've seen the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, supposedly set up a few years ago by the coalition government, and as far as I can work out all it seems to do is pay its staff to get on Facebook. They don't actually seem to be turning out any jobs for Queensland.
But let's look at what the Queensland Labor government and the federal Labor Party's vision for Queensland is. Let's look at some of the projects. For the Townsville port channel widening there is $75 million invested, giving 60 ongoing jobs and 120 construction jobs. The Rockhampton-Yeppoon road duplication gets nearly $50 million. That will create 150 local jobs and boost regional productivity. The Mackay ring road gets $100 million and 250 new jobs. The Gladstone port access road gets $100 million and 200 Queensland jobs. The Burdekin hydroelectric dam gets $200 million and will give enough electricity for 30,000 homes. The South Rockhampton Flood Levee gets $25 million to finish the levee, and obviously that will protect households in times of flood. And Labor will allocate $176 million to the Rockwood Weir and also pump money into the Bruce Highway extension, investing in real jobs that deliver economic benefits for Queensland.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): Order! The time 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.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) (11:59): by leave—I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in order to facilitate the work of the Federation Chamber in considering the appropriation bills:
(1) on Tuesday, 22 May 2018 the Federation Chamber to meet from 12.15 pm to 1.30 pm for government business in addition to its scheduled hours of meeting, and there to be no grievance debate;
(2) on Wednesday, 23 May the Federation Chamber to meet from 9.45 am to 1.30 pm and from 4 pm to 7.30 pm;
(3) on Thursday, 24 May the Federation Chamber to meet from 9.45 am to 1.30 pm and adjourn without debate;
(4) on Tuesday, 29 May the Federation Chamber to meet from 12.15 pm to 1.30 pm for government business in addition to its scheduled hours of meeting, and there to be no constituency statements;
(5) on Wednesday, 30 May the meeting of the Federation Chamber to continue until 1.30 pm and then suspend until 4 pm;
(6) on Thursday, 31 May government business in the Federation Chamber to continue until 1 pm and an adjournment debate to take place from 1 pm to 1.30 pm;
(7) on Monday, 18 June the period from 4 pm to 5.45 pm to be allocated to government business, 90 second statements to take place from 5.45 pm to 6.30 pm and private Members' business to take place from 6.30 pm to 7.30 pm;
(8) on Tuesday, 19 June there to be no grievance debate;
(9) on Wednesday, 20 June the Federation Chamber to meet from 9.45 am to 1.30 pm and from 4 pm to 6.30 pm;
(10) on Thursday, 21 June the meeting of the Federation Chamber to continue until 1.30 pm, with consideration of the appropriation bills to have priority;
(11) on Tuesday, 26 June the period from 4.30 pm to 6.15 pm to be allocated to private Members' business, followed by a one-hour grievance debate;
(12) on Wednesday, 27 June constituency statements to continue for one hour and there to be a grievance debate starting no later than 12 pm for one hour and resuming for another hour no later than 6 pm;
(13) on Thursday, 28 June an adjournment debate to take place for one hour from no later than 12 pm; and
(14) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2018-2019
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019
Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2017-2018
Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2017-2018
Reference to Federation Chamber
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (11:59): I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, at the adjournment of the House for this sitting, the following bills stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration: Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2018-2019, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019, Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2017-2018 and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2017-2018.
COMMITTEES
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ) (12:00): I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip nominating members to be members of certain committees.
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) (12:00): by leave—I move:
That:
(1) Ms Swanson be appointed a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources;
(2) Ms Kearney be appointed a member of the Standing Committee on Economics;
(3) Mr Giles be appointed a member of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training;
(4) Mr Conroy be appointed a member of the Publications Committee;
(5) Mr Hill be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works;
(6) Ms Templeman be appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network; and
(7) Mr Hart be appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.
Question agreed to.
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources
Report
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (12:01): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled APVMA regulatory reforms: inquiry based on the Auditor-General report no. 56 (2016-17)—Pesticide and veterinary medicine regulatory reform, together with the minutes of proceedings.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr RICK WILSON: by leave—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, I present the committee's report, as previously stated.
Australia's agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines industry is vitally important to farmers, ag-vet producers and to the wider Australian public.
A well-regulated industry requires a strong regulator.
It is of paramount importance that ag-vet chemicals are adequately regulated to ensure that they are safe and effective.
The committee was concerned by evidence presented both in the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) report and by submitters and by witnesses to this inquiry which suggests that the APVMA has struggled to fully implement the 2014 legislative reforms.
The 2014 reforms were intended to increase the APVMA's efficiency and to reduce the regulatory burden on industry. However, evidence received during this inquiry suggests that those reforms to date have been minimal at best.
The committee heard concerns from industry that the registration process, particularly for new products, is fraught with delays, inconsistencies and a lack of transparency.
The committee heard from ag-vet manufacturers whose products, which were often quickly registered overseas, often met with extensive delays here in Australia.
That said, the committee was pleased to hear that the APVMA has made some progress in using international evidence as part of its assessment process.
However, it is apparent much more work needs to be done in this regard.
Furthermore, stakeholders noted that an increased use of electronic systems would assist in reducing the burden on ag-vet producers.
Several witnesses also pointed out that the registration framework is too inflexible, meaning that low-risk products, like a dog shampoo, and a more serious medication were subject to the same level of assessment.
The committee's report makes four recommendations based on the evidence we have received.
Firstly, the committee recommends that the Auditor-General undertake a further audit of the APVMA in 2019, to assess the APVMA's ongoing implementation of regulatory reforms and its management of the relocation program.
We note that the APVMA has made progress since the time of this audit and in particular has implemented some stronger governance practices.
However, the committee believes that the role of the APVMA is so important that a follow-up audit would be recommended to ensure that the APVMA continues to fully implement its reforms.
Recommendation 2 relates to the establishment of a board of directors for the APVMA.
The committee notes that the government is moving on this front, and supports this.
The committee recommends that if a board is to be established the minister for agriculture should be consulted in relation to the appointment of members to provide additional oversight and further links between the minister and the APVMA.
Recommendation 3: the committee received evidence, from both the APVMA and from industry, suggesting that the authority's current funding model may no longer be appropriate.
The APVMA is almost entirely funded through cost-recovery mechanisms, and for the last three years has run at a $3.5 million annual operational loss.
The committee agrees with Dr Chris Parker, Chief Executive Officer of the APVMA, that this is 'unsustainable'.
We therefore recommend that the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources actively consider different funding models for the APVMA to enable it to fulfil its responsibilities in a timely manner.
The committee's final recommendation is that the APVMA provides to the committee by the first quarter of the 2018-19 financial year the results of the staff survey undertaken in early 2018 and the APVMA's consequential action plan, and updated risk assessment matrix relating to its relocation to Armidale.
The APVMA acknowledges that its relocation will present risks to its ongoing operational efficiency. The committee is therefore interested in ensuring that these risks are accurately identified and managed.
On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank all who have contributed to this inquiry by providing submissions or appearing at hearings.
I would specifically like to thank committee secretary Melanie Brocklehurst, inquiry secretary Joel Bateman and the secretariat staff for their hard work in preparing this important report to the parliament that I table in the House today.
I commend the report to the House.
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (12:06): by leave—The committee's report is on the inquiry based on the ANAO's review into the progress of the implementation of the pesticides and veterinary medicines regulatory reform. The inquiry was primarily about the APVMA's progress in implementing the reforms, which began under a former Labor government. The ANAO, importantly, described the implementation performance as 'mixed', but it was always going to be impossible to look at that progress through anything but the lens of the forced relocation of the regulator from Canberra to Armidale, which has severely damaged the authority's capacity to do its important work. I won't dwell on the many adverse effects of that relocation here. Suffice it to say that the mass exodus of staff has caused the authority to struggle at every level of its performance measure. The key point, with respect to this inquiry, is that the ANAO found, for example, 'the absence of a robust set of performance measures'. You can fairly, I think, sheet home the failure to implement those robust performance measures to the distraction which has been caused by the relocation of the authority. When staff are distracted by such massive upheaval—and it is massive—one can't expect progress in implementing reform to be what we might expect as a parliament.
The work of the authority is critical for our farmers, consumers and exporters alike. It plays a critical role in farm productivity, the delivery of the latest drugs to farm stock and companion animals alike, keeping us as consumers safe from chemical and other residues, and, of course, helping us access and maintain export markets. It is not an entity for pork-barrelling and political gamesmanship or opportunity. It has a very important role to play.
Since the government's announcement that it would relocate the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, the entity has performed badly against legislated time frames for the approval and registration of agvet chemicals, particularly with respect to new products, when timeliness in the delivery of those products to the farm sector is absolutely critical. I fear that some of the manufacturers are simply going to walk away from the Australian market because this government is making it all too hard. Forget the claims that performance has begun to recover again. It's all lies, damned lies and statistics. It's all based on a lower number of applications and priority being given by direction to the less complex cases, which of course can be moved through the authority at a much quicker pace.
I was astounded by the testimony of the CEO of the APVMA, the member for New England's hand-picked boss. Asked about the falling performance at every level of the APVMA since the announcement of the forced relocation, he managed to speak for no less than five minutes in explanation of that decline in performance without once mentioning the elephant in the room, the relocation of the APVMA. He did himself no service in doing that before a serious committee, and he should reflect on his performance at that committee.
Labor member's agree with most of the committee's recommendations. However, they can only help make a very bad situation just a little better. But we do not agree with the associated comments from the majority of the committee contained in the report and, of course, we lament the fact that greater concentration hasn't been given to the impact of the relocation on the progress of those ag-vet reforms. We certainly don't agree that we need a board of directors, further adding to the regulatory burden for manufacturers who pay to have their products registered. As the chair said, the APVMA is a full cost recovery agency. The manufacturers of the products pay—the taxpayer does not pay—and they do not want a board of directors. If there is to be a board of directors, they certainly don't want to pay for it, which is the intention of this government—an additional $600,000 to $700,000 every year for the privilege of having another level of regulatory burden around the APVMA. I note that despite the fact that the implementation of that advisory board requires legislation in this place, amendments already proposed by the government, the government has already booked the revenue in its budget papers before this parliament has made a decision about the proposed amendments.
The industry will pay. At the same time, the member for New England, with the total approval and applause of the Prime Minister, is spending $28 million or thereabouts moving the agency to Armidale in his own electorate. He is unnecessarily spending $28 million of taxpayers' money just to give effect to disruption. And now he will spend millions more on a so-called digital strategy so that he can pretend people aren't moving to Armidale but will still be working here in Canberra. It is a farce. This government is taking the taxpayer for a ride. It's doing great damage among the professional and dedicated staff at the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. It's a great shame that all of those people, who have dedicated their working lives to this cause, are now being asked to uproot their families from schools and workplaces to move to far-flung Armidale. That, more than anything else, explains why the APVMA has not been able to implement these ag-vet chemicals reforms as quickly as we would like.
Standing Committee on Procedure
Report
Mr PASIN (Barker) (12:13): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure, I present the committee's report entitled Maintenance of the standing orders: Interim report together with the minutes of proceedings.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr PASIN: by leave—I'm pleased to present the Standing Committee on Procedures interim report for the inquiry into the maintenance of standing orders. Early in the life of this parliament, the procedure committee resolved to adopt terms of reference for an inquiry into standing and sessional orders. This wide-ranging reference provides a formal mechanism for the committee to consider various, often relatively minor, procedural issues arising from proceedings in the House which are brought to the committee's attention. The committee resolved to adopt such a reference early in the current parliament to consider the current state of the standing orders, reflecting on the history and development of their application and interpretation.
Through its deliberations, the committee identified a number of issues that warrant further consideration, which the committee intends to address in a later report. However, the committee also identified a number of minor, consequential and technical issues and inconsistencies, some of which have been identified by previous procedure committees and not acted upon, and others which have evolved as a result of recent changes in practice or procedure. The committee has therefore resolved to produce this short interim report to highlight some of those minor issues and inconsistencies which the House may wish to consider remedying in the short term.
I thank the committee for their reasoned consideration of the standing orders to date and look forward to delivering the committee's final report later in this parliament. I commend the report to the House.
Electoral Matters Committee
Report
Mr GILES (Scullin) (12:15): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the committee's report incorporating a dissenting report entitled Excluded: the impact of section 44 on Australian democracy and ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e)
Mr GILES: by leave—I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this report, which I'm proud to have contributed towards and which is, in my view, deserving of serious consideration in this place and in the wider Australian community. The question of what restrictions should stand between electors and their choice of representatives is of fundamental importance to our democracy. Where there's been uncertainty over the functioning of such restrictions, this becomes even more significant. It's clear to me that the controversies which have led to this reference to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters have eroded faith in Australia's democratic institutions, and we have a shared responsibility to seek to restore this faith and to rebuild trust. I hope that this report and its recommendations can assist in meeting that profound challenge.
I will start my remarks by making clear what the report does not say. Contrary to the views of some commentators, the committee has not recommended that dual citizens be permitted to stand for election. We have made clear our view that this is a question for the Australian community to consider, not the present membership of the joint standing committee. Similarly, we have not expressed a substantive view on the extent to which the prohibition attaching to holding an office of profit under the Crown should be amended. What we do say though is that our constitution should, in time, be changed, and this report sets out why.
Let me be clear: I strongly share the view of the Leader of the Opposition that the priorities for referenda should be achieving proper recognition of our First Peoples in Australia's Constitution and making arrangements for us to become a republic, but this does not mean and cannot meant that we can ignore the reality of a situation in which more than half of us cannot seek election to this parliament, and none of us who have been so elected should hide behind the nonsense proposition that this must be put to one side because history suggests referenda tend to fail. It's this thinking that feeds the frustration which drives a wider alienation from politics. Real problems should never be put in the too-hard basket; we're in this place to solve them by making arguments, by persuading and by leading.
This report is a multipartisan attempt at resolving an important and difficult issue. It seeks to define the problem in the first instance. I think this is critical. The case studies in the report demonstrate the extent of the impact of section 44 as presently interpreted by the High Court. It's evident that the exclusions from full participation in public life are such that they are far from being a problem of the so-called 'political class'. In fact, the provisions operate, in effect, to separate Australians into two classes, when it comes to seeking election to this place, without warrant or contemporary justification. This is inconsistent with our multicultural society and also the present functioning of the Australian economy. This is the real issue at stake: that millions of Australians have a lesser stake in our national politics and that some may not be placed as a matter of practical reality to remedy this. Others may be dissuaded from participation. I think this is a major problem. I believe we should be striving towards a more representative parliament and a more diverse politics. We should send a message to all Australians that full participation in public life is open to them. I would like to do so now. I would like to ask Australians to think about the problem that we all must, at some stage, engage with and to consider the implications of this report for the type of country and the type of democracy we would like to live in.
In approaching future constitutional change, there are a variety of options arising from our recommendations. Choosing the right one is all of our business—that is all Australians, not simply members and senators. This report starts that conversation and sets out some markers and some principles. For me, I think we should be slow to stand between electors and their judgement as to who is best placed to represent them. I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister have made clear their view that this report and its recommendations need to be carefully considered. I look forward to working with them and with all of my fellow parliamentarians in this regard. While the changes foreshadowed are properly the concern of every Australian, this does not let us off the hook when it comes to leadership, to playing our role in ensuring our democracy is fit for purpose. Perhaps the Prime Minister might think about the role he could and should be playing in this regard.
I would like to thank the secretariat for the extraordinary work they contributed to this report and for the professional manager in which they did it. It is truly a privilege to work with them as it is to work with all my colleagues on this committee—my Labor colleagues, the member for Oxley, Senator Brown and Senator Ketter; the chair, Senator Reynolds, who worked tirelessly and effectively to bring together people, ideas and a shared purpose. I want to place on the regard my deep appreciation for her work and also that of senators Rhiannon and Leyonhjelm, whose divergent ideological views did not prevent major contributions and close collaboration on a body of work which matters equally to all of us who wish to argue about our competing visions for Australia rather than the framework in which those arguments play out.
The member for Tangney has issued a dissenting report. I acknowledge his consistent adherence to his principles and his constructive engagement with the issues before the committee. I do believe having his perspective as part of the discussion will enhance the debate, which is really the point—for Australians to consider the sort of democracy they want by reference to this critical question of who should be excluded from nominating for election to our national parliament. I look forward to carrying on this conversation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): Does the member for Scullin wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?
Mr GILES: I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 39 the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr GILES (Scullin) (12:21): by leave—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr HILL (Bruce) (12:21): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I seek indulgence to make a personal explanation. Pursuant to my statement by leave to the House on budget day, 8 May 2018, in my capacity as deputy chair of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit concerning the draft budget estimates for 2018-19 for the Australian National Audit Office. Since that statement, I've been made aware of further information. I consider that I am obliged to update the House at the first available opportunity and supplement my advice of 8 May to clarify any possible misunderstanding and pre-empt any accusation that I may have inadvertently misled the House. It is also important that this occurs now as it relates to the consideration of the appropriation bills about to be debated by the House.
I will precis the summary of my statement on 8 May. On advice, I stated:
The committee has been informed that the ANAO is not seeking supplementation in the 2018-19 budget. The Auditor-General has advised the committee that the ANAO's estimated expenses can be met within existing resources and that he anticipates completing approximately 48 performance audits over the period.
I went on to say:
In that light, the committee endorses the proposed budget for the ANAO in 2018-19 …
The proposed budget the committee considered included a funding reduction in the form of an efficiency dividend. The Auditor-General indicated he was not seeking supplementary funding and, on that basis, the committee endorsed the proposed budget, and I made my statement to the House. However, unbeknownst to the committee or to me at that time, the government, as part of the budget process, had decided to further reduce the funding available to the ANAO. Thus, the committee did not consider or endorse the proposed budget for the Auditor-General as set out in the appropriations bill now before the House. I'm concerned that as my statement to the House did not advise the House of the amount that the ANAO expected to receive from government, as has been the general practice in previous years, this omission may provide the basis for members to misunderstand the situation.
The government's imposed savings measures mean that appropriations to the ANAO will reduce by $0.69 million in 2018-19 and $0.92 million per annum over the forward estimates. This is a significant sum for a small agency already required to absorb the efficiency dividend. In terms of the practical impact of this, I am advised that, due to statutory obligations to prioritise financial audits and certain mandatory functions, in effect, this means a cut of funding available for performance audits. The Auditor-General advised parliament that he anticipates undertaking approximately 48 performance audits this financial year, and I'm sure he will endeavour to do so within the resources available.
However, contrary to the impression that members may have been given by my statement on 8 May, the committee has not considered if the ANAO's estimated expenses can be met within the resources proposed to be allocated by the appropriation bills. The ANAO has since advised that, in the event of the costs exceeding existing resources and funding, the Auditor-General will seek the finance minister's approval for an operating loss and to use accumulated reserves to fund the shortfall.
This is an extraordinary situation. I'm not aware of any precedent and it requires explanation. In saying so, I remind the House of two important matters. Firstly, the Auditor-General is an officer of this parliament, not the executive, appointed by the parliament on the advice of the presiding officers for a 10-year term and, hence, is accountable to this parliament. This is an absolutely critical distinction. The Auditor-General has no minister and reports to the parliament via the JCPAA. Secondly, the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act 1951 and the Auditor-General Act 1997 together provide a legislative mechanism whereby the Auditor-General's budget and resourcing are formally considered by the committee on behalf of the parliament. The JCPAA did not receive an accurate figure as to the expected funding of the ANAO for the financial year 2018-19, and I am advised that this appears contrary to the intended purpose of the transparency framework established by legislative obligations.
The JCPAA considered the intended purpose of this process in 2010 when reviewing the Auditor-General Act 1997. I'll read the three key paragraphs from that report, which summarised the situation:
In support of this process the Auditor-General Act 1997 empowers the Auditor-General to disclose to the JCPAA, before the federal budget, the draft estimates for the Audit Office (effectively the ANAO's budget submission). The Committee then has the information it requires to make formal representations to Government on behalf of the ANAO if necessary.
Immediately before the federal budget is delivered to the Parliament, the ANAO briefs the Committee on its funding allocation for that year. The Committee Chair then makes a statement to the Parliament—
as do I, as deputy chair—
on budget day, on whether the Committee believes the ANAO has been given sufficient funding to carry out its functions.
This power is intended to discourage governments from trying to influence the Auditor-General by unduly restricting his/her funding, and is reinforced by the Committee having the information needed to make representations to the Executive Government on behalf of the ANAO if necessary.
Members may reasonably ask why the committee did not fulfil this responsibility as intended. I understand that the Auditor-General sought permission of the Department of Finance and Treasury to brief the committee about the changes to his budget, noting that the Auditor-General has no minister to brief or advocate on his behalf. He was denied permission due to the budget secrecy rules and was advised that only the Treasurer could give permission. I understand that the Auditor-General approached the Treasurer to seek permission to brief the committee, but the Treasurer refused him permission to brief the committee. As an officer of this parliament, section 8(4) of the Auditor-General Act provides that the Auditor-General 'has complete discretion in the performance or exercise of his or her functions or powers'. Yet he was prevented by the Treasurer from exercising his office as he requested for the stated reason of the budget operating rules. The advice I have received is that it is unclear whether he is legally bound by those secret rules. It could be argued that, as a non-corporate Commonwealth entity, he is so bound by the PGPA Act. Suggestions for strengthening the process of resourcing the ANAO were considered by the JCPAA in 2010. The situation appears then to have not been thought possible.
Members may feel aggrieved to hear that the Auditor-General as an officer of the parliament felt obliged to follow the Treasurer's direction rather than meet what I see as the spirit and intent of the transparency framework in relation to the ANAO's resourcing. I am in no way critical of the Auditor-General's judgement, as he was placed in a terribly difficult—impossible—position, and it is important to record that. I've been advised that, as the Auditor-General was not able to inform the committee of the change in budget, the ANAO sought access to and reviewed the draft statement that was then provided to the chair and me to make to parliament on budget day. The amount of funding was omitted from the draft statement I was provided which I made in the House. While that may have been the best that could be done in the circumstances, I feel aggrieved that I was not informed of the true situation and may have inadvertently misled the House or, at the best, provided the basis for a misunderstanding. Again, I am in no way being critical of the Auditor-General's judgement in making this statement, as his actions were reasonable. The chair drew my attention to this situation last Thursday—and I thank him for doing so—as soon as he became aware of it. The Senate is not sitting, so the chair is not able to advise the Senate this week of the difference between the budget proposals considered by the committee and those proposed in the appropriation bills. The Auditor-General has not asked me to make this statement or in any way lobbied for additional funding. I'm making this statement in order to correct the record and fully inform members.
So, in closing, I draw the House's attention to this matter, as members may wish to consider this in speaking to the appropriation bills. I also advise the House that, as the committee is not due to meet until 20 June, I have asked the chair to seek a more timely meeting of the committee to consider the matters raised. This includes the immediate budget issue, the process that has occurred and the possibility of a formal inquiry into the process and whether legislative changes are required to prevent this situation from arising in the future. I will seek leave to update the House in due course when required.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2018-2019
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019
Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2017-2018
Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2017-2018
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (12:29): We on this side of the House support the appropriation bills in the same way that convention has dictated for nearly 40 years, now. Similarly, and consistent with the convention for these bills, we support the appropriations, but we take this opportunity to point out where we diverge substantially from the path that the government has taken us down with this budget.
It's very clear that those opposite are desperate for the Australian people to forget the cuts and the chaos of the last five years and the four budgets preceding this one. Having spent much of the last week on the central coast of New South Wales; in suburban Melbourne; in Sydney; and in my own community, including with the Leader of the Opposition and our candidate for Forde, Des Hardman, at Logan Hospital; I can assure those opposite that however they might kid themselves that the Australian people have somehow forgotten all of the cuts and chaos which began with that horror budget in 2014—whatever initiatives they come up with in a make-or-break election budget—they have another thing coming. This budget doesn't pass the fairness test. It's like all the other budgets from those opposite in that it fails the fairness test, because it puts big business ahead of battlers in this country. But the budget also fails the responsibility test. We have in this country record and growing debt, despite billions of dollars in new receipts—new taxes and charges—rolling through the door. We have record debt, twice what the government inherited in net debt from Labor, and gross debt that is over a trillion dollars for the first time in our history, despite all that new revenue, despite all these rosy forecasts around wages and despite the temporary spike in revenue which is being delivered to us by the upswing in the global economy.
What those opposite don't really understand when it comes to fairness and responsibility is that no budget which takes money from pensioners and gives it to the big four banks can be considered to be a fair one. No budget which collects an extra $40 billion in charges but still has debt twice what was inherited, including half a trillion dollars in gross debt, can be considered a responsible budget delivered by a responsible government. This budget was designed to be an election budget, and we're very happy. In fact, we on this side of the chamber welcome the opportunity to fight an election not just on the measures contained in this budget but on the dodgy values which underpin what has been proposed by those opposite.
Australians rejected the last four budgets, and I'm confident that they'll reject this one too. They will reject the cuts to hospitals, schools and TAFEs. They'll reject a budget which has a tax on pensioners, including taking away the energy supplement. They'll reject a budget which has record debt despite positive global conditions. They'll reject the budget of those opposite, because it still has these big tax concessions going to those who need them least, and they will still have this big $80 billion plus commitment to give handouts to big foreign multinationals and the big four banks.
But I think Australians will reject this budget and, ultimately, this government because the budget handed down two Tuesdays ago also could not be more out of whack with the nation's priorities. It bears absolutely no resemblance to the nation's values, the values of the people who make this nation strong. That's why I'm confident that Australians will reject what is being proposed by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister. The defining difference in that budget was on tax. The government itself considers tax to be the centrepiece of the budget, and we do too. I think tax really is where the budget battle is joined, because tax is a really clear demonstration in budgets of the competing values of those opposite versus the values that we share with the majority of the Australian people.
What the government are proposing to do with their new income tax cuts is asking the Australian people to vote for tax cuts seven years down the track, after two more elections—tax cuts which overwhelmingly favour the wealthiest in our community. The ANU, NATSEM, the Grattan Institute and others have pointed out over and over again that those tax cuts are deliberately designed to deliver the biggest gains to people who need them least in our community. Obviously we take a dim view of tax cuts seven years down the track when we don't know what the economy will look like and we don't know what the budget will look like, and where those tax cuts will overwhelmingly favour the top end of town. We take a dim view of that.
We also think that the government are in real danger of repeating the mistakes made in the Howard-Costello period when big income tax cuts were built on the back of a temporary spike in revenue. One of the reasons we had 10 years of difficulty with the budget is that we had a structural problem in the budget. In the latter years of Howard and Costello, they gave big tax cuts assuming that the good times with the budget would roll on forever, and of course they didn't with the intervention of the global crisis and other things as well.
So we've seen this movie before and we didn't like how it ended. We don't want to see a sequel of big tax cuts to the top end of town being paid for by a temporary spike in revenue when we don't know how enduring that temporary spike may be. I think it says everything about the approach taken by those opposite. We have said on this side, 'If you split the bills, the income tax legislation, we are prepared to vote for the 1 July tax changes straightaway. If you split out the tax relief for the low- and middle-income earners from the tax relief for the top end of town, we'll pass the 1 July changes immediately.' We've said that repeatedly. The fact that the government are prepared to hold low-income earners hostage to the political games they want to play in here with their trickle-down economics speaks volumes about their real commitment to the workers of this country—people who work and struggle for a living and need and deserve some tax relief. Of course, they won't tell us how much each stage of the tax plan costs. They're asking us to vote for tax cuts seven years down the track—cuts which favour the top end of town—and they won't tell us what each stage of their tax plan costs.
What really rubs salt in the wound for a lot of working people in this country is that the government have taken this approach to their tax cuts at the same time as they are proposing an $80 billion tax cut for multinationals and the big banks. Again, $80 billion is an estimate. We think it might be more than that. We've asked the Treasurer and the Prime Minister in this place, from the dispatch box, repeatedly, 'How much does the company tax cut cost the Australian people? and they've been unwilling or unable to tell us how much that costs. That really rubs salt in the wound for a lot of working people. They know that there's a big tax cut being delivered to those who need it least at the same time as those opposite are holding them hostage to political games here and in the Senate. Of the $80 billion or so, it's estimated that something like $17 billion will go to just four companies in this country, the four big banks. When you consider the revelations about the rorts and rip-offs that are coming out of the royal commission, the idea that the Turnbull government want to give a $17 billion tax cut to those four big banks really beggars belief. It says it all, really, about the warped priorities of those opposite. The member for Barton and all of us on this side of the House want to see the victims of the rorts and rip-offs compensated. Bizarrely, those opposite want to see the perpetrators compensated for the dodgy behaviour being uncovered in the royal commission.
With them at every step of the way is the One Nation party, who have indicated that they will vote for a big tax cut for foreign multinationals and the big banks at the same time as our friends in the Greens have said that they won't support tax relief for low- and middle-income earners. What that tells us is that, right around the country, if the people of Australia, the workers of Australia, want their interests served by this parliament, they are going to need a Labor government, not One Nation or the Greens. Only Labor have the interests of working people at heart. That's where our bigger, fairer tax cut for 10 million Australian workers really comes from: our belief that the first port of call when it comes to tax relief should be the people who work and struggle in this country—the people on low- and middle-incomes. They should be the first port of all. That's why we've devoted a substantial amount of money to proper tax relief for 10 million Australian workers.
That's not our only alternative tax policy. We've also got the Australian investment guarantee, which doesn't spray $80 billion around overseas which goes to executive pay, share buybacks and puffed up dividends. Our tax plan for business ensures that the investment onshore, and that's obviously good for jobs and investment here in this country obviously.
So our tax reform plan has a bigger, fairer tax cut for 10 million workers, an Australian investment guarantee to ensure that companies invest onshore and we don't see the benefits flow overseas and, of course, the closing down of a lot of the loopholes which are costing the budget billions of dollars and flowing overwhelmingly to those who need them least. So we've got a substantial tax reform plan.
Our tax reform plan is really how we fund that which we truly value as a society. By making these difficult decisions elsewhere in the budget, we can give that tax relief for working people. We can restore cuts to hospitals. We can found MRIs in places right around Australia so that people can get the scans that they need to get their treatment on track. We can restore the cuts to schools. We can invest in TAFEs after years of the hollowing out of TAFEs and apprenticeships. We can get the VET system back on track as well.
This budget was framed in the best global economic conditions for a decade. A hundred and twenty economies were growing around the world. The IMF and others, including our own Reserve Bank, were pointing to the fact that the global economy really was in remarkable nick compared to where it was over the last little while. Because of that, the Treasurer had $40 billion of extra taxes and charges show up on his doorstep. He would like credit for that, but I don't think he can take credit for growth in 120 economies around the world. All of this extra money has just shown up. It's been a long time since we've had these sorts of revenue upgrades. But still, despite that, we've got those cuts to hospitals, schools and TAFEs. We've still got record debt. We've still got a deficit this year which is more than six times bigger than it was in Joe Hockey's budget in 2014. We've still got a tiny surplus in 2019-20 which relies on one thing only, and that's the bringing forward of tobacco tax. We've still got all of these things going on. The budget is not in the condition it should be in when you consider these global economic conditions. And why is that? It is because we've got these big tax concessions which are eating up and a bigger and bigger share of the budget and going to those who need them least, and we've got a government which proposes to shovel another $80 billion in the direction of multinationals and the big banks.
On this side of the House we take our responsibilities as the alternative government very seriously. We don't just point out the substantial and obvious flaws in the budget of those opposite. We propose an alternative. We put forwarded costed alternatives. We take courageous decisions in tax. We set out what we'll do if the Australian people hand us the keys to the government. We will be fairer than those opposite—that's not hard—but we'll be more responsible as well. We will make room for different choices. We will put the budget on a more sustainable footing. As Chris Bowen, the shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon, said last week at the National Press Club, we've got a set of fiscal objective and fiscal principles which indicate to the Australian people just how responsible we are prepared to be with their money, whether it be tax reform or the paying down of debt right across the budget. We take our responsibilities very seriously. We do want to make room not just for our priorities as a Labor Party and as a Labor government; more importantly than that, we want to make room for the nation's priorities, which are to give ourselves the best chance to properly care after our sick, our frail and our aged; to give this country a proper opportunity to educate our young people; and to make sure that our taxes are as fair as possible.
Instead of this warped version of trickle-down economics that we've had for five budgets now in five years, we can satisfy the three objectives that really matter when it comes to managing the economy: economic growth which is inclusive, work that is rewarded and a decent social safety net for those left behind or those at risk of being left behind. That's how we realign economic policy in this country with the values and aspirations of the people. That's how we exercise power on their behalf and not on behalf of the millionaires and multinationals which those opposite prioritise again and again and again in their budgets.
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Defence Personnel, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC and Deputy Leader of the House) (12:44): I rise to make some comments in relation to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019 and highlight that the budget released only a matter of weeks ago provides this government's positive plans for the future. It gives a clear choice as well between our approach of investing in small and medium-sized businesses, investing in jobs for the future and relieving some of the tax burden on Australians, and the Australian Labor Party's approach, which is to tax people higher and put a handbrake on the economy.
This is our plan. It's our plan for the future, and it also provides a great level of investment in the regions. In the budget, we outlined how we would encourage hardworking Australians and reward them through tax relief; how we'd work with the business community to help them to invest and create more jobs, providing that certainty and confidence they need; how we'd also guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on, particularly in health and education; how we'd keep Australians safe with our strong border protection policies and defence policies; and how we'd ensure that the government continues to live within its means.
In Gippsland, I must say the budget has been well received—in particular the welcome announcement of $132 million for the final stage of the Princes Highway duplication project. This is a project that has enjoyed bipartisan support over many years now at both state and federal level, and I'm appealing to the Victorian state government to continue that level of bipartisan support by finding its 20 per cent of the final funding which will be required to finish the job. There's $132 million now on the table from the Commonwealth and $33 million required from the state government to finalise this project. I must say the state government would have to be bonkers not to stump up $33 million to finish the work. We're all committed to having a better and safer Princes Highway, and it's been one of those great projects which have seen local jobs created—so a benefit there—and have seen benefits from improving road safety and reducing road trauma, a strong benefit in the community, but also a longer term benefit of improving productivity, allowing us to get our products to market more readily, and obviously the longer term safety implications for the people of Gippsland—but not only the people of Gippsland but also the people who choose to travel to our region. We're passionate about increasing our visitor economy in Gippsland, and the more work we can do to improve our road and rail connectivity the more likely it is that we'll see jobs flow through the tourism sector.
The budget also included an important program, the Roads of Strategic Importance initiative. As a former minister in the Infrastructure and Transport portfolio, I was working with my department and state governments on such a program, and I want to congratulate the current minister for delivering on that promise. It will complement the existing programs around Roads to Recovery, the road Black Spot Program and the Bridges Renewal Program, along with the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program. All those programs provide opportunities for investment in better and safer roads around Australia but particularly in regional Australia, where a disproportionate number of people are killed and injured on our roads on an annual and a daily basis. So I'm very pleased to see the investments in road and rail infrastructure in the budget and am looking forward to working with my constituents to make sure that Gippsland receives a fair share of those funding commitments.
In my current portfolio, I must say the veterans' affairs budget has been well received, largely, across the sector. I believe that in the veteran community there's an assessment that in the reforms that have been started by my predecessor, Dan Tehan, and after him Michael McCormack for a brief period of time, we're heading in the right direction but there's more to be done. The announcement in the budget of an additional $100 million, on top of the reform agenda which was already underway, has been well received.
I'm determined as a new minister to make sure that we're putting veterans first but, perhaps just as important, to make sure that we're putting veterans' families first as well. The families are a critical part of the defence story and the veterans' story in our nation. We need families to support our veterans once they've finished their service. Obviously, once they're in the armed forces, whether it's the Navy, the Army or the Air Force, having the support of families and friends is so critical. So I'm very pleased with the investment in veterans and their families announced in this year's budget, in excess of $11 billion, which is a sizeable investment in the families and in the veterans themselves, who have served our nation with great distinction. There's a large range of activities that the Department of Veterans' Affairs is undertaking in consultation and partnership with our stakeholder organisations.
I must say, given the opportunity today, that I'm very pleased with the appointment of our new secretary, Liz Cosson. Liz comes to the job with perhaps the most extraordinary credentials of any person to apply for a senior Public Service role, in the sense that she has many generations of family history of service in the military. She has served with great distinction herself. She has worked in the Public Service for several years and has been right at the centre of the reform program that's been underway at the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I wish her well in that role and look forward to working with her.
As I indicated, there are some challenges still. While we are heading in the right direction, there are also challenges for us in the veterans' space. Two of the key areas I'm particularly keen to see us progress in the weeks, months and years ahead relate to the transition of military personnel out of the armed forces and the mental health of our veterans. The best support we can provide our service men and women is the economic independence that comes with securing a job. Making the transition from a military career into civilian life can be difficult for some. In the order of 5,000 to 6,000 Australians do it every year. The majority do it quite successfully, but there are others who require additional support. That is something we must continue to work on as a nation.
We are continuing to provide job opportunities for veterans by contributing more than $8 million to the Prime Minister's veterans program and ensuring the business community recognises the benefits of employing a veteran. When it comes to employing a veteran, I make this very important point: this is not about charity or giving to a good cause; hiring a veteran will be good for your business. These are people who have a proven record of hard work, discipline and patriotism. They have learnt skills in the military which are easily transferable to a range of civilian careers. As people who respect their service and have some level of understanding of that service, we should do everything we can to help them transition successfully from a military career to a civilian life. We want to encourage our veterans to make that transition well, and support those who may be struggling.
One area I mentioned a moment ago which has been brought to the attention of many members in this place is the mental health of our veterans. I thank members on both sides who have reached out to me since I've taken over this role to present to me case studies in their own communities of individuals they're concerned about. I also thank the shadow minister for bringing to my attention the feedback she receives from her consultation with ex-service organisations. This is one area of public policy where I have no doubt that we can have complete bipartisanship. We can work together to provide the best possible services and treatment outcomes and support for our veterans struggling with mental health issues.
We currently provide free mental health care to anyone who has served one full day in the Australian Defence Force. But that's not well understood. I would suggest that some people who would benefit from that free mental health care may not be aware that they're entitled to it. It is as a challenge for us as members to promote that within our communities, to work with ex-service organisations to reach out to our communities and ensure that all veterans are aware they can get support when they need it. We'll also be extending this to all reservists who have rendered disaster relief or border protection services or been seriously injured during a training exercise. I think this is a positive step. I again thank those opposite and members on my own side of this chamber who have reached out to me to provide more insights into the way that we could do additional work, particularly in our regional areas, to make sure those services are getting to people when they need it the most.
In the time that I have left I would like to make a few comments in relation to some health matters—some in relation to the budget and some more generally in relation to how we train the health workforce in our regional areas. Despite the claims of those opposite, the health budget under this government is at record levels. It's growing and it is at record levels. There was an important announcement in the budget of a $95 million investment in relation to the Murray-Darling Medical School. This is great news. It has been very well received in those communities and certainly by the local members who are directly impacted by it. It is part of the government's plan to attract and retain a rural health workforce and give younger people in regional areas the opportunity to train for their health careers in their own communities.
For families in regional areas, it is an incredible cost when a student has to leave to study in the city. There are significant costs associated with living away from home to undertake tertiary studies. The Murray-Darling Medical School is a good step in the right direction to help alleviate some of those costs and encourage more young people to practice medicine in regional areas. If you can attract a regional person into a medical career, they are more likely to go back and practice in a regional location. And if they have had some training in a regional area, they are more likely to go back and practice in a regional location.
But I would raise a cautionary note. It relates to Monash University and its behaviour in Gippsland over the last decade. I am concerned about the direction Monash University has taken in Gippsland. I have a question about how committed Monash University is to the Gippsland area and to regional Victoria more generally. I have raised these concerns directly with Monash over the last couple of years but I would pose this question: is Monash University fair dinkum about Gippsland and about the hopes and aspirations of regional students? The recent history would say suggest that it is not fair dinkum about the future of its services in the Gippsland region.
I want to refer to correspondence from Dr Andrew Greenhill, a highly regarded educator in my electorate, to provide a bit of background to these comments regarding Monash. Funding was provided by the Howard government to promote a pathway for regional students to study medicine in a regional location, at the Gippsland Medical School. I fear that Monash, through its behaviour in recent years, has effectively blocked that pathway for many Gippslanders. Comments from Dr Green support me in my concerns. He wrote:
Until recently, young people in Gippsland had a pathway to medicine which seemingly offered the great benefits that the Murray-Darling Medical School's network is expected to deliver.
He went on to say:
When Monash University withdrew from tertiary education in Gippsland, they retained the medical school. Monash University has since changed the eligibility criteria for entry into the medical degree, stipulating that students must do an undergraduate degree at a Melbourne campus of Monash University. It should be noted that Federation University, since its inception, has offered a degree in biomedical sciences at the Gippsland campus. The single major impediment to having a successful pathway for regional students to enter medical school in our region is an unjust and unjustifiable policy put in place by Monash University that states that students must study an undergraduate Monash degree, and thus live in metropolitan Melbourne for three years, to gain entry into a rural medical school.
As I said, I have raised these concerns with senior levels of Monash University in the past. What it means for a Gippsland student who is very successful at secondary school level and achieves the marks required to undertake a potential career in medicine must do their medical science degree with Monash at Clayton and cannot access their local campus of Federation University. And only then, after they've had that three years away from their hometown and that support that's provided to them, can they apply to go to Gippsland Medical School in Churchill.
I don't think it's good enough. In 2018, surely Monash could work with Federation University or other regional based universities and establish a pathway which doesn't require students from Gippsland to pack up their whole lives and move to Clayton whether they want to or not. I am completely relaxed if that's their choice but, under the current model that Monash has implemented in Gippsland, they have no choice. There is no pathway for a Gippsland student to remain in Gippsland or Latrobe Valley, perhaps study at the Churchill campus and move on to the Gippsland Medical School—also at the Churchill campus.
So I appeal to Monash to think very seriously about the direction in which it is taking its medical training services in the Gippsland region. With that in mind, I'm keeping a very watchful eye on the Monash University review of the School of Rural Health which has been announced. I'm not optimistic, given Monash's previous decision and the negative view they've had on Gippsland, that this review is going to be positive for our region. Health professionals in Gippsland are very concerned that any change in the delivery of the School of Rural Health will impact on the development of staff and students in our community. So I would appeal to the Monash University executive team to think very seriously about the question I asked before: are you fair dinkum about providing professional services to the people of Gippsland? Are you fair dinkum about supporting the hopes and aspirations of Gippsland students who wants to pursue a medical career?
In conclusion, this budget has been well received in Gippsland. From an infrastructure perspective, it has been extraordinarily popular, particularly around the Princes Highway investment. I would encourage the state government to find its 20 per cent funding to finish the project.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Mr CHESTER: I acknowledge the member for Grayndler's contribution. If he had been here earlier and listened to the whole speech, he would know how glowingly I spoke of his contribution to infrastructure investment in Gippsland and the Princes Highway. (Time expired)
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (12:59): When it comes to infrastructure investment, budget 2018 is just a con. In the weeks leading up to the budget, the government busied itself by leaking budget plans to newspapers. It attracted front-page coverage of its promises to build Melbourne Airport rail, Western Sydney rail, and the next stage of the Adelaide South Road upgrade. Australians must have been surprised by this. It seemed that finally, after years of cuts, the government had realised the value of nation-building investment. The fact though is that this budget shows that the government has not overcome its irrational and ill-advised rejection of investment in public transport to tackle traffic congestion in our cities.
This is a government where the spin is so different from the facts. There was not a dollar of new infrastructure investment in last week's budget. Nothing for Melbourne Airport rail. Nothing for Western Sydney rail. Nothing for Brisbane's Cross River Rail project. Any new investment commitment announced in the budget does not involve new money; it's drawn from previously budgeted funds. That's all there for everyone to see on pages 137 to 144 of Budget Paper No. 2. On program after program, for state after state, there are lines of zeros in the forward estimates.
The fact is that most of the infrastructure investment won't be delivered for many years to come. This budget is a triumph of spin over substance. As the second president of the United States, John Adams, once said:
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
Let's have a look at their new announcements in the budget drawn from money that was already there—all on the never-never. A paltry one per cent to be invested over the next 12 months. Four dollars out of every $5 invested not this year, not the year after, not the year after that and not the year after that, but some time into the never-never beyond the forward estimates—more than 80 per cent. This is the never-never budget. In the meantime, actual investment is due to fall off a cliff. There's $8 billion in infrastructure grants to the states in the current financial year. That falls each and every year to $4.5 billion by 2021-22. From $8 billion down to $4.5 billion; almost cut in half.
After last year's budget, the independent Parliamentary Budget Office said that, over the next decade, infrastructure investment as a proportion of GDP will fall again by half—from 0.4 per cent to 0.2 per cent. It's a bit like Mr Wimpy in the Popeye cartoons, who used to wander around saying, 'I will gladly pay you on Tuesday for a hamburger today.' In this case, Malcolm Turnbull tells Australians, 'I'll gladly build you a rail line or a new road, but just vote for me some time in the next year and then vote for me again, and then sometime after that into the never-never I might actually do something.' This government not only is cutting investment but can't even deliver its reduced budgets, and the budget papers show that. Over its first four budgets, the difference between what the government has announced and allocated on budget nights from 2014 through 2015, 2016 and 2017—if you look at what has actually been expended over that period of time—is $4.7 billion.
Underspending is everywhere. There has been $2.7 billion underspent on roads. The Northern Australia Roads Program is $190 million underspent. The Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan is $700 million underspent. The Northern Australia Beef Roads Program is $74 million underspent. Even essential road safety, through the Black Spot Program, is underspent. We know that there are black spots across every one of the electorates of the representatives in this chamber—every single one—and yet $100 million is underspent. The Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program, established by the former Labor government, was maintained after pressure by this government. But what they've done is just not spent the money—$134 million. Every time you're driving on a highway and you think, 'That is somewhere where, in the interests of road safety, there should be a heavy vehicle rest stop,' know this: this government has had the funds but hasn't had the competence or the capacity to actually deliver that project. The fact is that it's happened almost every year across almost every program. It is a rolling parade of failure. Either the government is hopeless—and we know that it is—or it seriously misleads the nation about its real investment intentions.
There's an old saying: if something seems too good to be true, it probably is. So it is with the government's continuing attempt to move away from direct infrastructure grants to the states for major projects and towards off-budget funding. Three years ago it created the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. It spent very little besides flying board members around the southern capitals to have board meetings. This has become the 'no actual infrastructure fund' when it comes to actually delivering. They also cut real infrastructure investment to establish an infrastructure financing unit in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. It was given the task, which Infrastructure Australia has under legislation, of attracting private investment in public infrastructure. A year later, the IFU has not produced a single project—not one. It's a failed experiment.
The fact is that off-budget funding can work in appropriate circumstances. An example is the Moorebank project in Sydney. I support the off-budget funding of the second Sydney airport because that will produce a return when it is leased, as other airports have been. But, in order to be off budget, a project must achieve two things. Firstly, it has to have revenue that is greater than operating and maintenance costs. Now we know that public transport projects in Australia and, indeed, around the world don't do that. That doesn't mean they're not worthwhile, because they contribute to the national economy by boosting productivity, taking pressure off the road network, making a contribution to economic growth and improving road safety by having less cars and heavy freight vehicles on our roads. But that does not mean that they produce a return.
Secondly, they have to produce a return on capital on the original investment. For example, in order for the Melbourne Airport rail link to be funded off budget to produce a commercial return, it would have to produce more revenue day to day than it has operating and maintenance costs and produce a return on the capital, which is likely to exceed $10 billion. It won't do that. So this grand announcement on page 1 of the newspaper is worth precisely zero, zip, no dollars, no investment.
The criteria for those opposite, who regard themselves as mini capitalists, would ask if, to have off-budget funding, you would invest your own dollars in this business which would produce a return on your investment as well as an ongoing income stream. The answer to that is simply no. And Mathias Cormann knew that. That's why the Minister for Finance argued against this in the cabinet processes. Everyone knows this to be the case except, perhaps, this foolhardy Prime Minister who imagines himself not as leading the nation but as the merchant banker for the nation who can somehow put together projects like this for free.
The fact is that this is sham funding. This fantasy follows last year's $8 billion for the Inland Rail after the former Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, in his 2015 study for this government said:
… the expected operating revenue over 50 years will not cover the initial capital investment required to build the railway.
And the CEO of the ARTC, John Fullerton, said to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit earlier this year:
From a strict ARTC point of view, no, the revenues that flow to us wouldn't cover the full capital cost and provide a return.
Now, I support the inland rail project, but it's got to be funded properly. I support Melbourne Airport rail, but it's got to be done properly. I certainly support western Sydney rail through Badgerys Creek airport, but it also will require real dollars and real investment. And the experts all say that that's the case.
Here's what someone from the Grattan Institute said:
So there's a real risk that these equity investments will end up not even making a positive rate of return, never mind a commercial rate.
… … …
If infrastructure projects are never going to make a commercial return, the government should stop pretending they will.
The chief economist for Industry Super Australia, Stephen Anthony, said:
We're opening up the potential for more unfunded liabilities but we don't need more time bombs.
Adrian Dwyer, the CEO of Infrastructure Partnerships Australia says the budgets cuts infrastructure investment by $2 billion over four years. He said:
… the warm infrastructure narrative pre-budget has not been met with cold hard cash in the budget papers.
… … …
At a time when our population is growing and our cities are more congested than ever, we need to see infrastructure dollars trending up not down.
The 2018 budget is not an infrastructure budget. It's an infrastructure mirage that calls us to look years ahead to an investment horizon that might never be reached. Meanwhile, average Australians looking for better roads and public transport are stuck in an infrastructure desert. This self-delusion will increase our national infrastructure deficit and at this very time refuses to fund, for example, Cross River Rail, which is a necessary prerequisite for funding Sunshine Coast rail. Unless you fix the second crossing, you can't do anything in terms of expanding the rail network in Brisbane, the Gold Coast or the Sunshine Coast. And that's why the sidelining of infrastructure Australia is such a major issue reflected in this budget.
In that announcement, with the north-south road project from Torrens to Torrens and the South Road Superway, which we have been calling for repeatedly at press conference after press conference on site to be built, finally Infrastructure Australia says it's on the priority list on the day that it's leaked to The Adelaide Advertiser when they've had the business case since 22 June last year. Such an undermining of infrastructure autonomy and credibility should not have been allowed by the government, because it's embarrassing for IA that that occurred.
Spin doesn't build infrastructure. Investment is required. It doesn't build itself. Investment is required. Only a Labor government will provide that investment. We've done it before and we'll do it again.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities) (13:14): I rise to speak today on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-19, and I welcome the opportunity to speak, yet again, about the Turnbull government's commitment to a once-in-a-generation investment in nation-building infrastructure. I want to make three points. We are seeing an unprecedented level of infrastructure investment led by the Commonwealth government, which is driving economic growth, investment and employment outcomes. Our infrastructure spend reflects key policy priorities of the Turnbull government. I also want to use the opportunity to correct some misleading claims by the shadow minister—misleading claims by the shadow minister are a resource which is not in scarce supply.
The government is maintaining a historically high spend on transport infrastructure of over $8 billion per year over the forward estimates—and more than $75 billion over the next 10 years—and it is doing that in a wide range of ways. If you include payments to support state infrastructure services, if you also include untied local road grants through the financial assistance grants, if you include payments to non-state equities, if you include investments through equity injections and other financing options, and if you include the various commitments the Commonwealth has made, then what we are providing is $8.6 billion in 2018-19, $33.9 billion between 2018-19 and 2021-22, and over $75 billion over the next decade for publicly announced projects, initiatives and commitments and ongoing subprograms including financial assistance grants and maintenance.
Let me remind the House of the extraordinary sweep and scale of the commitments made in the 2018 budget in relation to infrastructure. They include the $3.5 billion Roads of Strategic Importance initiative to lift the productivity of our regional freight and passenger routes, the $1 billion Urban Congestion Initiative, up to $250 million for major project business case development and up to $160 million in additional investment on the Outback Way.
Let's look at the great state of Queensland, where over $5 billion will be invested, including an additional $3.3 billion for Bruce Highway projects, taking our total commitment on the Bruce Highway to $10 billion; and $1 billion for upgrades to the M1 Pacific Motorway between the Gold Coast and Brisbane, on top of the existing projects already underway between Mudgeeraba and Varsity Lakes and, of course, the Gateway merge. We also announced funding for the Beerburrum to Nambour rail upgrade, we announced $300 million for the Brisbane Metro public transport project and we announced funding for the Cunningham Highway from Yamanto to Ebenezer. In New South Wales, there is $1.6 billion for the Coffs Harbour bypass on the Pacific Highway, for Port Botany rail and the new Nowra bridge. In Victoria, we've committed up to $5 billion for the long-awaited Melbourne Airport rail link. Other projects, such as the North East Link, Rowville rail, the duplication and electrification of the Frankston line to Baxter, a Victorian congestion package, regional rail for Geelong and other projects, total some $2.8 billion.
In Western Australia, there is $1.1 billion for further METRONET projects, $944 million for a Perth congestion package and $560 million for the Bunbury Outer Ring Road. In South Australia, there is up to $1.4 billion for future priorities on the North-South Corridor, inclusive of the $177 million we announced for Pym Street to Regency Road. Money for the Gawler rail line electrification and the Joy Baluch Bridge was also included in this year's budget. In Tasmania, there is $461 million for the replacement of the Bridgewater Bridge and $400 million for a Tasmanian roads package under the Roads of Strategic Importance program. In the Northern Territory, there is funding for the Central Arnhem Road upgrade and the Buntine Highway upgrade. In the ACT, there is a Monaro Highway package. So there is a sweeping and impressive range of infrastructure commitments in the 2018 Turnbull government budget.
This forms part of a pattern in which we are seeing strong activity in infrastructure and in construction around Australia. In the December quarter in 2017 the value of public sector engineering work increased by 5.7 per cent to $8.67 billion. We're seeing this being reflected in the aggregate economic outcomes, as the International Monetary Fund observed a couple of months ago in its annual assessment of the Australian economy. Despite, in its words, the economic shocks of the commodity price boom and the mining investment boom ending, infrastructure investment has helped keep the economy performing. It says:
The recovery from these shocks has advanced further in 2017. Aggregate demand has been led by strong public investment growth amid a boost in infrastructure spending …
Recently the Reserve Bank governor, Philip Lowe, had this to say about government spending on transport infrastructure:
Another important part of the investment story recently is strong growth in investment in public infrastructure. The pick-up has been particularly noticeable in spending on transport infrastructure in the eastern states and the pipeline of work to be completed is large. The extra investment is directly creating demand in the economy today and adding to tomorrow's productive capacity.
Deloitte Access Economics in its recent investment monitor assessed the outlook for business investment in Australia as being healthier than it has been for some time and noted that this comes at the same time as 'state and federal governments are spending large amounts of money on project projects'.
The commitments in this budget build on the Turnbull government's existing record levels of investment in infrastructure, recognising that in order for the Australian economy to continue to grow and be competitive infrastructure investment must remain a core focus for the government. The commitments in this budget form a coherent plan for the future of Australia's transport infrastructure. They represent the projects and upgrades that will help shape our cities and define our regions. Let me point, for example, to Western Sydney Airport as an infrastructure project that will have a transformative economic impact. We are delivering infrastructure that communities in Western Sydney and around the nation will benefit from. We've committed to a $5.3 billion equity injection into WSA Co., the government owned company established to build and own Western Sydney Airport. This project will provide much-needed additional aviation capacity for Sydney and for the nation. It will give the people of the rapidly growing Western Sydney area much better and fairer access to air travel, and it will attract businesses and jobs to Western Sydney, where another one million people are expected to be living in 20 years time. During the construction phase it will support tens of thousands of jobs, including over 11,000 anticipated direct and indirect jobs throughout the construction phase, and by 2031 there will be around 28,000 direct and indirect jobs generated by the airport in its operational phase.
Western Sydney Airport forms part of a much broader list of projects being funded around the country, transformational projects like the $16.8 billion WestConnex motorway project in Sydney, which is being supported with a grant of $1.5 billion from the Commonwealth and a concessional loan of $2 billion, and major rail projects like METRONET in Perth and the Melbourne Airport rail link. We have committed $1 billion for projects on the M1 between the Gold Coast and Brisbane. On the Monash freeway and the M80 ring road in Melbourne the combined investment from the Commonwealth is some $1 billion. I've spoken about the funding we've committed for the future on the north-south corridor in Adelaide, but there are three projects underway benefitting from $1.6 billion of funding from the Turnbull government. Our approach to infrastructure reflects and gives effect to key policy priorities of the Turnbull government: driving productivity and efficiency in the Australian economy, maximising the role for investment and capital, and planning for the growth and effective functioning of our cities.
Let me turn, in the time that remains to me, to addressing a number of highly misleading claims that have been made by the shadow minister. We've had the repeated claim that there's no new money for infrastructure. It is a claim he made in his budget night media release and has made subsequently. It is absolutely incorrect. Let me explain once again the accounting treatment here. The Turnbull government made a commitment in last year's budget to invest $75 billion for infrastructure, and we backed up that commitment with the appropriate accounting treatment, in which we provisioned the required amount of money—several billion dollars a year, every year, over 10 years. That's why we call it a 10-year program. What we will then do every year is allocate specific projects against that rolling program, with the expense allocated to specific years. That's why there's no need for individual dollar amounts to be set out in Budget Paper No. 2, because we've already provisioned a total amount for infrastructure in advance. We've committed to investing over $75 billion over 10 years in transport infrastructure investment, including over $33 billion in the forward estimates, 2018-19 to 2021-22.
The shadow minister is evidently so shocked by this prudent and responsible accounting treatment that he resorts to what he knows to be deliberately false and misleading claims that there's no new money. Tell that to the people who will benefit from Bridgewater Bridge in Tasmania, because they now know there's $461 million allocated out of that infrastructure program for the bridge. They also know that Labor, by contrast, is promising a derisory $100 million. Try telling the people of Bunbury that there's no new money when in fact they've been told, quite correctly, that there's $560 million for the Bunbury Outer Ring Road. Try telling the people of Nowra that there's no new money when they've received the news that there's $155 million committed for the Nowra Bridge. Try telling the people of the Gold Coast that there's no new money when they have been pleased to hear that there's $1 billion allocated by the Turnbull government for two projects on the M1: the upgrade from Varsity Lakes to Tugun and the upgrade between Eight Mile Plains and Daisy Hill. This is all part of the Turnbull government's 10-year plan, with our commitments being fully funded and sequenced within the plan. The Australian government has committed to a decade-long pipeline of infrastructure projects focused on driving economic growth, increasing productivity and connectivity and creating new employment opportunities.
Of course, we hear the ludicrous claim from the shadow minister that infrastructure investment is falling. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. In his budget night media release, he misleadingly quoted just one line of the multiple lines of funding for infrastructure—Commonwealth infrastructure grants to the states. In other words, he completely ignored the substantial amounts of money the Turnbull government is spending in equity and loan investments: $5.3 billion for Western Sydney Airport and $8.4 billion for the Australian Rail Track Corporation for inland rail, a $2 billion concessional loan. There is even the equity injection into the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal, which he should well remember from his own time as minister.
The total amount of investment provided in equity and loans in the budget over the four years of the forward estimates is over $9 billion, which Mr Albanese simply assumes away in a wholly inaccurate and wholly misleading characterisation of the true numbers of infrastructure investment over the next four years. I remind the House of those numbers: 8.6 billion in 2018-19, $8.7 billion in 2019-20, $8.2 billion in 2020-21 and $8.5 billion in 2021-22. I also remind the House of the average spending when the shadow minister was the responsible minister. It wasn't $8 billion; it was just over $6 billion. So the shadow minister is absolutely wrong when he claims that infrastructure investment is falling.
Let me focus just for a moment on the ludicrous claim we heard repeated just a few moments ago that the funding for the Melbourne airport rail link is a sham. The shadow minister criticises us for indicating an interest in providing equity investment in the Melbourne airport rail link. We make no apology for doing that. We are absolutely interested in looking at innovative ways of funding and financing infrastructure and, if there's the prospect of an equity investment, we are certainly interested in looking at that, just as we have funded Western Sydney Airport through an equity investment. We are absolutely interested in looking at innovative ways to approach infrastructure investment, but I just make the point that the shadow minister, in his comments, seems to have missed Budget Paper No. 3, at page 48, which says:
The Commonwealth’s $5 billion investment in the Melbourne Airport Rail Link will be provided as equity or otherwise as agreed—
that's to say 'as agreed with the Victorian state government'—
but consistent with the principles of conservative Budget management, this investment has initially been reported as grant funding.
So his basic premise is completely wrong—the claim that the money is a sham. It's in the budget as a grant.
Of course we are interested in looking at having a partnership with the Victorian government. We've made that very clear. Of course we're interested in looking at equity. But the fundamental proposition from the shadow minister on this point, as on so many others, is fundamentally wrong. The truth is there are unprecedented levels of infrastructure investment to support economic growth and deliver lifestyle benefits and productivity benefits all around Australia.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): It being 1.30, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Banking and Financial Services
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (13:30): Meddling with schoolchildren's savings accounts is the latest scandal to engulf our banks. On Saturday, Adele Ferguson reported that thousands of children's Commonwealth Bank accounts were fraudulently set up by branch staff as part of a scam to get bonuses and meet performance targets. The scam involves CBA staff illegitimately activating Youthsaver accounts with small sums of money for the financial gain of the staff.
Of the 150 branches investigated, Montmorency in my electorate of Jagajaga had the highest percentage of accounts with deposits of less than $1. The principal of Montmorency South Primary School, Leanne Sheean, said the bank had manipulated her school:
They bring in a cuddly bear, the kids get taken in and, in reality, it is fraudulent what they have done and they are using schools to do it.
The royal commission into our banks and financial system has heard evidence of alleged bribery, forged documents and financial planners charging fees to dead people. We have seen AMP admit to routinely lying to regulators, and now we have the Dollarmite scandal. The Commonwealth Bank posted a profit of $9.8 billion last year, and this is how they behave. The conduct of the CBA in Montmorency in exploiting innocent children is totally unacceptable. (Time expired)
Boothby Electorate: Repatriation General Hospital
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (13:31): As a community member, a newspaper columnist, a candidate and the member for Boothby, I fought to save the Repat hospital. Last week, I joined my state colleagues the member for Elder, Carolyn Habib, the member for Waite, Sam Duluk, and the health minister, Stephen Wade, and City of Mitcham Mayor Glenn Spear at the Reviving the Repat community meeting to share the fantastic news about health services returning to the Repat precinct.
The Repatriation General Hospital, better known to locals as the Repat, is located in my electorate of Boothby and was a historic health hub dedicated to the care of returned servicemen and servicewomen and their widows for more than 70 years. It was also a wonderful community hospital for residents in my electorate—that is, until the former Labor government announced in 2015 that it would close the Repat as part of its disastrous Transforming Health strategy. This was a terrible blow to the community, reducing access to health services for residents in southern Adelaide and, in particular, reducing access to vital therapy services for our veterans.
I'm delighted that, under Premier Steven Marshall and the South Australian Liberal government, the Repat hospital site will be restored as a health precinct by the end of the month, with the reopening of the hydrotherapy pool. Health Minister Stephen Wade is also commencing community consultation to bring more health services back to the site. I congratulate Premier Marshall, Minister Wade, Carolyn Habib and Sam Duluk for their commitment to the Repat site and thank everyone in the community, including Dr Warren Jones, who supported our efforts to revive the Repat.
Grandparents for Grandchildren SA Inc.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (13:33): In a miserly, penny-pinching decision, the South Australian Marshall Liberal government will end financial assistance to the organisation Grandparents For Grandchildren SA. The not-for-profit group has existed for 15 years, providing financial, emotional and services support to around 12,000 families, including many Indigenous families, with whom community partnerships and support groups have been formed.
The value of grandparents caring for grandchildren is immeasurable, with the advantages to wellbeing of the children and financial savings to the state being immense. Were it not for grandparents, responsibility for so many children would rest with the state government. Many of the grandparents are not well off. They are often elderly and sometimes sole grandparents, and invariably they have their own health problems. They often struggle physically and financially, and they rely on Grandparents For Grandchildren for assistance with services and advice. I've met with grandparents caring for their grandchildren, and I've heard firsthand about the difficulties they face and the sacrifices that they make.
This was a short-sighted, insensitive cut by the Marshall government that in the long term will cost taxpayers much more than it is expected to save. I call on the Marshall government to show some compassion, demonstrate some understanding and reverse its heartless decision to defund Grandparents for Grandchildren.
McMillan Electorate: Community Services
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (13:34): They all said a citizens advice bureau couldn't be done, but Tina, with a chuckle, replied that maybe it couldn't but she would be the one who wouldn't say no till she tried. I was greatly blessed to be at the celebration of 40 years of service to the community by the South Gippsland Citizens Advice Bureau from 1978 to 2008 and of 10 years of service for the visitors information centre. Part of that celebration was Tina Bons, who had served for 40 years, and the amazing Shirley Reeves, who has also served for 40 years. That is to say nothing of the other hundreds of volunteers who have served the citizens advice bureaus not only in Leongatha but right across my electorate and surrounds in Victoria. These have been amazing people. If you were to count it up, they think they've done 150,000 interviews with people in just the Leongatha centre. Imagine the hours that went into that for volunteers. Maxine Kiel, the Tarwin Valley ward councillor said:
They are all an inspiration and it is a privilege to be part of their current committee.
We do not volunteer, for the most part, because it benefits ourselves.
We volunteer because it makes a difference.
What an amazing group of people and what a contribution they've made to their community. It couldn't be done, they said. It was done and it's still being done.
Scope, Mr Harry, JP
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (13:36): Today I want to recognise Harry Scope JP of Bateau Bay, who is 96 and has been a justice of the peace for 53 years. Harry's service was recognised on Saturday at the state conference of the New South Wales Justices Association, held in my electorate at Mingara. As patron of the Tuggerah Lakes branch of the New South Wales Justices Association and as a fellow JP, I was invited to welcome guests to the conference. Harry was recognised for his dedicated service by His Excellency General the Honourable David Hurley, the Governor of New South Wales. Over the years, Harry has been a plumber, a motor engineer and a salesman, but this has not stopped him from pioneering the JP community desk and helping out in The Entrance and Wyong with volunteer policing. It was on the Central Coast that the first JP community desk in New South Wales was established. We have now eight such desks in our area, and there are more than 130 across the state.
JPs give so much to their communities. In my experience, JPs are always willing to lend a hand, are happy to put in the hard yards and are available to provide professional services to those who need them when they need them most. It is a very special achievement to be able to do so in such a consistent and lasting way, as Harry Scope JP has done. On Saturday, Harry said, 'I've enjoyed every moment of the job I'm doing, and I hope it will be a long time before I give it up.' Congratulations, Harry, and thank you for your service. Congratulations also to conference coordinator and director, Bruce Gibbs JP, for bringing the conference to the Central Coast this weekend.
Employment
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (13:37): Recently there have been some amazing milestones that have been reached by both sides of the House. On this side of the House, Mr Speaker, we, the coalition government, have reached no less a milestone than the creation of a million jobs in Australia since coming to office—a significant contribution. In contrast, those on the other side have also reached a significant milestone—no less a milestone than $14 million in fines to the CFMEU. In the lead-up to the Super Saturday by-elections, constituents in all electorates will have very clear definition about which side of government they want. We have a bold forecast.
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr BUCHHOLZ: Those on the other side will interject because the one million jobs that we have put on, when we first announced them, were said to be bold forecasts. They were, and we didn't think we would be able to reach them. But we have not only reached them; we have surpassed them. Seventy five per cent of those jobs have been in the small business sector, reducing welfare lines. We've been able to do this because we have got our tax settings in place. We're building and creating a stronger economy. Those on the other side are subservient to the paymasters of the CFMEU—recidivist offenders, according to the Heydon royal commission. Justice Heydon said that they were just terrible.
Live Animal Exports
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (13:39): In August 2017, 2,400 sheep died in terrible conditions on a ship travelling from Fremantle to the Middle East. In July 2016, 3,027 sheep died due to heat stress on the same journey. This shocking cruelty is becoming an all-too-frequent occurrence, and Australians have had enough. They want the cruelty to end. I've been contacted by thousands of constituents who say that they want the sheep trade to end.
The Australian Veterinary Association and the RSPCA have said that the northern summer sheep trade must cease. The Turnbull government's response has been predictable and out of touch—another review, an increase in fines, blah, blah, blah. Australians have heard it all before, and nothing changes. Australians have said, 'Enough is enough,' and Labor has listened. Labor has a clear and decisive response. If Labor is elected, we will stop the northern summer sheep trade at our first opportunity. We will phase out the balance of the live sheep export trade into the future. And we will introduce higher regulatory standards during that transition phase. Labor will end the cruelty. Labor will support our sheep farmers to ensure they're successful and, importantly, to ensure that we create jobs here in Australia through a domestic industry. Labor will end the cruelty. Only Labor will act on live sheep exports.
Dawson Electorate: Roads
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (13:40): In 2012 I led a convoy of Liberal-National politicians, including former deputy prime minister Warren Truss, along the entire 1,700 kilometres of the Bruce Highway, highlighting the places that needed attention most urgently. That convoy, and my 'Fix the Bruce' campaign, worked, securing record funding for the Bruce, and major projects such as the Mackay Ring Road are now under construction. But half-a-billion worth of works on stage 1 of the ring road is only the beginning; we need to close the loop on this ring road. Labor has plucked the figure of $100 million out of the air to wave around for stage 2. But the reality is we need a full and proper commitment that will deliver the benefits of the road. Connecting stage 1 to the port will alleviate more of the congestion. Dangerous, heavy trucks will be taken off local streets. The right infrastructure will make the most of the billions of dollars our regional economy pumps into the state and national governments. Both those governments must realise that, if they like it, they need to put a ring road on it. If they like the royalties, if they like the billions of dollars in revenue, if they like the thousands of jobs that our region generates then they must complete Mackay Ring Road stages 1 and 2. We need to see a commitment to stage 2 now to ensure the project doesn't stall when stage 1 is completed. I look forward to seeing the government make a commitment by 'putting a ring road on it'.
Indi Electorate: Junction Support Services
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (13:42): Colleagues, I'd like to tell you about a support service in my electorate called Junction Support Services. Established in 1989, it is a not-for-profit and does fantastic work. It supports people who are disadvantaged by poverty, homelessness, family breakdown, social isolation, family violence, mental ill-health and drug and alcohol addiction. It is a registered charity and they take donations from our community. Today, I would particularly like to do a callout to the staff who welcomed me to Junction Services on Friday and showed me around—Corienne, Michelle, Amber, Natasha, Cassie, Leanne, Zach, Rachel, Shelly, Taylor, Tanya and Megan. And I should not forget Bonnie the golden retriever, a dog who makes everyone feel welcome. The staff told me their biggest issue is homelessness. Right across north-east Victoria, more and more I'm beginning to see the impact that the lack of a national approach to addressing homelessness is having. Junction Support Services does a lot of work in this area. They tell me the largest cohort of service users are families and single adults aged between 26 and 35—22.5 per cent. Seventeen per cent of service users are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders. Junction Support Services works with 90 families. Seventy per cent of children accessing the service have experienced violence and 54 per cent have emotional issues— (Time expired)
Budget
Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (13:43): On the Friday after the budget, Treasurer Scott Morrison and I visited Seaford Senior Citizens Club and the University of the Third Age to talk about how we're helping seniors stay in their homes and make their own choices for longer, as well as how we're aiding pensioners and retirees in this year's budget.
I then joined Minister Hunt, the Minister for Health, at Frankston Hospital to discuss new PBS listings such as Spinraza to help people with spinal muscular atrophy—people like Ally Clarke in my electorate—live a long and happy life, as well as the benefits of our $225 million for hospital connectivity.
On Tuesday morning, Minister Fletcher and I hosted a round table with key stakeholders on our $225 million rail project which will extend Metro Rail to stations servicing Frankston Hospital, Monash University, Karingal, Langwarren and Baxter.
That night, the Prime Minister formally opened the new Dunkley electorate office at 37 Playne Street and hosted a successful Politics in the Pub at Seaford Hotel. The next morning, Minister McVeigh visited, marking the delivery of a new jet ski for Frankston Life Saving Club named after Mary Ricca, as well as the Empire Mall opening in Mornington. I was also then visited by Minister Cash, who spoke to local businesses and toured Bolwell, the largest full-body commercial car manufacturer still in Australia, as well as the Brotherhood of St Lawrence, to announce $700,000 for the youth employment body.
The 2018-19 federal budget is very important for Dunkley.
Broadband
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:45): A member of my community who lives less than 20 kilometres from where I am standing here right now contacted me about the diabolical speeds he currently receives on ADSL2+. We're not even talking about the NBN here; we're talking about the retrograde copper based service currently existing in my community. In Banks, Dale can't even get a download speed of one megabyte per second on ADSL2+. That's not the only issue. After years of countless issues with his internet service provider, poor old Dale has had his internet speed slowed down even more just so it maintains a stable connection.
Dale has been waiting for the NBN to come and solve all of his problems. He was supposed to get it in early 2017, and then it was delayed until late 2017. At the last check, his street may not be connected until December 2018. I wouldn't be putting money on that, Dale, because I have a horrible hunch it's going to be delayed even further under this government. Even then, Dale doesn't know what technology he'll receive.
Every day I'm contacted by members of my community expressing their disappointment in the dismal rollout of the NBN. Every day someone living in the nation's capital sends me their appalling download speeds. Canberrans are fed up and want to know why the government hasn't— (Time expired)
National Volunteer Week
Mr DRUM (Murray) (13:47): I wish to take this opportunity to thank all the volunteers because this week is National Volunteer Week. I want to mention the fact that my parents were such amazing volunteers in my small town of Congupna, where I grew up. Volunteering has always been a part of our life. My sister Kerry has volunteered all her life. She works in women's health and family planning, and she is currently overseas helping a developing country with its family planning issues. My brothers Des, Chris and Vince have all worked as volunteers, sometimes in aged-care facilities or at their local football netball club. My nephew Heath is a local champion when it comes to volunteering with the Shepparton Search and Rescue, as well as the Congupna Football Club.
The Congupna Football Club I want to use as an example, not because it's special but because it's so unspecial. It's reflective of every other small community right around Australia. At Congupna the current coach is a guy called David Gee, who has coached every level of football, from the fourths, the thirds, the seconds to the seniors. Wendy Sidebottom has been a massive part of the netball club. Now these families' children are starting to volunteer and give their time so that this football netball club can hold its place in the Goulburn Valley.
The 2016 census showed that just over 118,000 people were surveyed in Murray, and 27,900 consider themselves to be volunteers. I want to thank each and every one of those who are volunteering in their respective communities and their respective towns throughout Murray.
Women in Politics
Dr MIKE KELLY (Eden-Monaro) (13:48): I would like to take this opportunity to call for a raising of the standards in our politics from the point of view of gender. We have at the desk here with us today, fortuitously, the member for Ryan, who has been an adornment to this parliament, who is highly respected and valued and who has raised the standards of civility and bipartisanship. She has been a wonderful colleague and she does not deserve to receive the treatment she has received. In my region we are now seeing the same forces lining up against the member for Gilmore.
When you look at the proportion on the other side, there is 22 per cent female representation, and apparently they are going backwards. I compare that to the ability of our side to hit the 45 per cent target. We will achieve 50 per cent in the years to come. It shows it can be done. It shows, too, with the member for Ryan's contribution, what women will bring to this parliament.
I also understand this is part of an ideological battle—the far Right are trying to remove those voices of reason and moderation in the party room. I would ask them to reverse their field on that. Otherwise, this community will judge them very harshly on ignoring these gender balance issues.
We've heard from the member for Indi. We have heard from my colleague the member for Canberra, who has done a fantastic job in this place. Treating this issue seriously will improve the standard of our parliament and improve the civility of our discussion. I would ask the coalition to wake up to themselves on this. It's not too late. Take some serious action and look after the women in this community.
Leichhardt Electorate: Cairns Businesswomen's Club
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (13:50): It gives me great pleasure to rise today to pay tribute to the fantastic businesswomen in my community. On Friday I attended the Cairns Business Women's Club business woman of the year awards. These awards are now in their 31st year and truly showcase the amazing and inspirational women we have in our community. This year's winners included: Hannah Lane, Leanne Todd, Brianah Coates, Julie McNeil, Rylee Venables, Tiarnie Mueller and Dianne Austrai-Ombiga. Each have inspirational and unique stories and they're all very worthy winners. What makes these awards extra special is they give other businesswomen in our community role models to look up.
The Cairns Businesswomen's Club was born in the 1980s from a vision to improve the profile of women in business in Cairns. In 1985, the founder, Margaret Gill, owner and manager of a motel in Cairns, placed an advertisement in the local paper to put the idea out there that business networking lunches weren't just for men. When it was first launched, there were 57 women in the Cairns Businesswomen's Club. Over the next 30-odd years it has grown to become one of the leading organisations in my community. It continues to offer support, inspiration, networking and professional development assistance to its members. Under the stewardship of the current president, Jukes Steer's, everyone involved in this marvellous organisation should be extremely proud of what they achieve on a daily basis— (Time expired)
Oxley Electorate: Forest Lake
Mr DICK (Oxley) (13:51): I rise today to record my opposition to a proposed high-rise development in my community at Forest Lake and to place on record my support for the Forest Lake action group, who are leading the charge to stop this development and this eyesore and this ridiculous development from going ahead. Forest Lake is a beautiful local suburb which many families, seniors and young people call home. You'll find people around the lake. You'll hear the voices of children and couples taking their pets for a walk around the edges of a late afternoon as the sun sets over the majestic waters. But this is now under serious threat.
An eight-storey development has been planned adjacent to the lake which will overshadow what has always been a scenic community meeting place. So far the LNP council has remained silent on this development. The LNP planning boss in the Brisbane City Council, Councillor Julian Simmons, has been far too busy stacking the branches in the member for Ryan's electorate to remove a hard-working representative of this place.
Mr Falinski interjecting—
Mr DICK: The member for Mackellar is another person who took out a woman on that side of the chamber. This LNP believe they have too many women in parliament as it speaks. With the removal of the member for Ryan, this will leave one Liberal woman in the House of Representatives from Queensland. Everyone opposite thinks that's acceptable. I'm here to say the Labor Party says that's not acceptable. We will keep fighting for the rights of women, not only for their voices to be heard but to serve in this parliament—
Mallee Electorate: Sea Lake
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (13:53): One of the great parts of my job is getting out, not just to inland cities but to the country towns. Recently I was in the township of Sea Lake. At Sea Lake I caught up with the Sea Lake Preschool. The students said that at Sea Lake has very good playgrounds and good backyards so we can have pets if we live in Sea Lake. At Sea Lake, they have the Mallee Rally. They have a great swimming pool. They have good houses with fun toys, bush kinda at the green lake and they have a great supermarket.
I want to put on the record that they want the parliament to do some things for them in Sea Lake. They want lots of parties with their friends—that's very important. In Sea Lake they want a giant, enormous toy store. They want more people to visit Sea Lake. I tell you what, if we get a giant, enormous—ginormous—toy store, more people will come to Sea Lake. They want a swing, and I've already talked to the local council—advocating for the things that matter—so that they can have a swing in Sea Lake. The pre-schoolers said they want more places to walk their dogs and they want a vegetable shop. When we encourage our young pre-schoolers to get involved in democracy, when they come and see their local member, we get a better government; we get a better Australia. Come to Sea Lake; the people are passionate. Come and visit their giant, enormous—ginormous—toy store when we deliver it. (Time expired)
Centrelink
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (13:54): Ask any Australian who has had to contact or access Centrelink, and they will tell you of their own personal nightmare. We've heard stories of people waiting for weeks and even months for payments to be approved and of weeks for MP inquiries to be answered. We've heard stories of people being placed on hold for hours while trying to phone Centrelink. Older Australians will be met with 1.2 million busy signals to Centrelink by the end of this financial year. And we've heard stories of people being wrongly targeted for debt recovery.
This government is trying to make it so difficult, so painful and so frightening for Australians to try to claim Centrelink in the hope that they will give up. The truth is that Centrelink is understaffed and underresourced. The government cut 1,280 job in the department in this year's budget. Last year, it was 1,180. Piece by piece this government is selling Centrelink to private contractors and labour hire firms—Serco, to be exact. Centrelink needs permanent, full-time staff who are properly equipped to manage the complex issues faced by income support recipients.
This government is only interested in demonising vulnerable Australians. Labor believes that our social safety net should allow people to live with dignity—in other words, what is fair. And don't start me on child support, or personal information being handed over to authorities. (Time expired)
West, Dr Richard, AM
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (13:56): In 2001, Dr Richard West, AM, was made a Member of the Order of Australia for services to medicine, particularly as a surgeon in the area of development of procedures for infection control in clinical surgery, and to education. This award followed years of outstanding work in the field, where he had a distinguished career as a teacher and a surgeon at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and at the University of Sydney.
In addition, Dr West was the Censor-in-Chief at the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, a board member of the college council and in charge of all post-graduate training of surgeons in Australia and New Zealand. This reflects his strong commitment to educating young surgeons, which also includes acting as chairman of the board of basic surgical training.
Dr West has also given back to the community as a committee member for the Sydney Breast Cancer Foundation and also as president of The Palm Beach & Whale Beach Association. His achievements and work have benefitted the community greatly. I am proud to acknowledge Dr West's work in this chamber.
Budget
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (13:57): For years there has only been one member for Banks in this House. But now there are 76 of them! There they are, all over there: 76 members for banks—big banks!
These are the members who, today, are arguing that $17 billion worth of tax cuts should go to the disgraced and ashamed big banks instead of to schools, which have had $17 billion cut from their funds. There are 115 temporary dismountable classrooms at public schools in my electorate. Schools are busting at the seams, but the coalition seems to think that the money is better spent on bonuses for big banks than on the schools and on teachers for those schools.
It is no surprise that the shortest line in the building is the line of MPs who want to invite the aged-care minister into their electorate. While there are 105,000 people on an aged-care waiting list, this minister has given a measly 3½ thousand new places each year to try to deal with this. In four years time there will be over 110,000 people waiting for aged care, and these guys have turned their backs on them. If they won't stand up for schoolkids and they won't stand up for the elderly, who will they stand up for?
Energy
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (13:59): In a nation like ours, rich with a range of energy resources, we should have some of the lowest electricity prices in the world and the most reliable electricity in the world. Yet, as we know, this is not the case.
Today we've seen energy company AGL refuse an offer by Alinta to purchase the Liddell coal-fired power station and extend its life. Alinta are disappointed, because the sale would have allowed them to continue to drive down the cost of electricity and increase reliability.
In an age when large corporates take social responsibility and social activism so seriously, surely for all power companies their most important job should be delivering cheap and reliable power to hardworking Australians. Cheap and reliable power ensures our senior Australians can turn their air conditioners on in summer and their heaters on in winter. It means that parents don't have to choose between properly feeding and clothing their family and paying their power bill. It means that businesses don't have to cut back on employees and growth because record power prices have kicked in.
South Australia has seen record numbers of power disconnections and a spike in families seeking help from organisations like Foodbank SA. Labor government policies, Labor opposition policies and the market have failed to deliver cheap and reliable power. We must look at all options to provide cheap and reliable power. The lives and livelihoods of so many Australians are depending on us to do so.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:00): The Minister for Foreign Affairs will be absent from question time this week and the Attorney-General will answer questions on her behalf. The Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources will also be absent this week and the Deputy Prime Minister will answer question on his behalf.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Live Animal Exports
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (14:01): My question is to the Prime Minister. Given that there are reports today that up to six government MPs support the member for Farrer's private member's bill to phase out live sheep exports, does the Prime Minister support the bill? Will the Prime Minister support further debate on the bill and ensure that government members on the Selection Committee are aware of his view so that all members can have their say on this very important issue?
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House on a point of order?
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, matters to do with the Selection Committee and the schedule of the House are not within the responsibility of the Prime Minister. It was not a general question; it was a very specific question about when the bill will be dealt with and how the process will be unfolding. I'm happy to answer that question, but it's not within the responsibility of the Prime Minister.
The SPEAKER: I will allow the Manager of Opposition Business to speak on the point of order.
Mr Burke: To the point of order, Mr Speaker: it's impossible I think to view the part of the question that says, 'Does the Prime Minister support the bill?' as being answered by anyone other than the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister pass on his—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business might have just made the point there. That's the only part of the question that I think is in order.
An honourable member interjecting—
The SPEAKER: No. It's probably best you don't. Certainly I'm going to allow the part of the question that asks whether he supports the bill. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:02): I thank the honourable member for his question. The government supports a live export trade that respects animal welfare and obviously respects community views on animal welfare. We are taking immediate action to ensure that animal welfare is maintained, the jobs of thousands of Australian farmers are preserved and our export markets are respected and maintained. As honourable members know, the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources commissioned a report from Dr Michael McCarthy. That has recommended a number of changes to the export regime. In summary, on live sheep voyages to the Middle East in the coming northern summer, sheep will get 39 per cent more space and stocking densities will be reduced by up to 28 per cent. The reportable mortality level will be halved from two per cent to one per cent. Independent observers on behalf of the government will be on the vessels to make sure that these standards are maintained. The observers will be reporting daily to the regulator.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, given that you ruled that the only part of the question that was in order was whether or not the Prime Minister supports the private member's bill, he should be relevant to that.
The SPEAKER: I have been listening very closely. Manager of Opposition Business, when he's talking about the substance of the topic that is the subject of the bill, I really can't see how he's anything other than in order. The Prime Minister is in order.
Mr TURNBULL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The government's objective is, as I said, to ensure that animal welfare is maintained, that animals are treated humanely in this transport, that the livings and viability of Australian farmers—particularly in Western Australia, where most of these shipments are derived—are respected and maintained, and that our export markets are maintained. We do not want to have a repetition of the debacle that we had under the Labor Party, where the entire live cattle export business was banned and, as a consequence, farming families across the nation were facing ruin and the price of cattle crashed, from the far north of the country all the way down to Tasmania. That's the sort of recklessness the government will not be a party to. What we have put in place—along with the minister, who is absent, as I said—is a careful and considered approach based on science, and that is why the government does not support the bill.
Economy
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (14:05): My question is to the Prime Minister: Will the Prime Minister please outline to the House how the government is strengthening the economy and backing business to create even more jobs for Australian workers, including in my electorate of Petrie? Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:06): I thank the honourable member for his question. Only last week, we were at Kennedy's Timbers, a business in his electorate, where we saw the results of confidence and of determination to invest and build a business. Indeed, this was in a week when we learned that, since the coalition government was elected under the leadership of the member for Warringah in 2013, Australians had together created 1,013,600 jobs. That was months before the five-year target, ahead of time. And those jobs have been built by the optimism and the commitment and the passion of Australian businesses like Kennedy's Timbers. As Michael Kennedy observed during our visit, he took on one new employee in April, and she may very well have been the one millionth new employee taken on in Australia.
This is the consequence of Australians rising to the challenge of investing, of having a go, of taking a risk, and of building their businesses. We have enabled that and supported that with one policy after another that creates more opportunities for Australians to invest, whether it is lower business taxes, whether it is an instant asset write-off, whether it is ensuring that there are more export opportunities by creating one big free trade deal after another with China, Korea, Japan, Singapore, more recently Peru, and, of course, the 11-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership, which we recall the Labor Party urged us to abandon and said we were deluded in pursuing.
So, by cutting taxes for small and medium family businesses, we have seen this great growth in employment, and we must not forget that a business that earns revenue of $50 million a year or less is not a giant business—it's overwhelmingly going to be an Australian family-owned business—but more than half of all Australians work for those Australian small and medium family-owned businesses. And they are the ones, like Kennedy's Timbers, that are responding to the incentives we've created. This enables us to guarantee and deliver increasing funding for the essential services Australians rely on: schools, hospitals, security, keeping Australians safe, the vital economic infrastructure we need. All of this is enabled by a stronger economy.
And, yes, there is an alternative. It's the alternative of Labor, with over $200 billion of new taxes, which would crush that energy and that growth. (Time expired)
Taxation
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:09): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister support Labor's bigger, better, fairer income tax cuts that will give a teacher earning $65,000 a year a tax cut of $928 a year, almost double the amount they've been promised by the government?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:14): Mr Speaker, if even John Setka doesn't trust the Leader of the Opposition—and he pays for the campaign of the Labor Party; he's the principal funder, the controlling shareholder and the primary financier of the Labor Party—why would any Australian voter or Australian worker trust the Leader of the Opposition? How could you trust the Leader of the Opposition, with his rolled-gold guarantees? It was not so long ago that there were a few more faces sitting opposite, Mr Speaker. They were apparently rolled-gold guaranteed to be eligible to sit here. Well, they've all had to resign. The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition cannot be trusted on one promise at all. This is a man who seeks to be Prime Minister; who stood at this dispatch box and said, 'Lower company taxes deliver more investment, greater productivity, more jobs and higher wages.' Great stuff! Did he believe it then? Who knows? Does he believe what he's saying now? Who knows? John Setka doesn't know—nobody knows. He cannot be trusted—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
Mr Shorten: On direct relevance. Why won't the Prime Minister answer the question on why he won't support Labor's almost double income tax cuts compared to his own?
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has concluded his answer.
Employment
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (14:11): My question is to the Treasurer. How does a stronger economy create more jobs for Australians, including those in my electorate of Forde, and is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:11): I thank the member for Forde for his question. Like everyone on this side of the House, we are as pleased as that a million jobs have been created in this country since the election of the coalition government. A million jobs. That's what was promised and that's what's been delivered five months ahead of schedule. A million jobs. A million Australians going out there seeking work and finding it in businesses that are growing, expanding and creating jobs for Australians all around the country, including in the member for Forde's electorate. There were 415,000 jobs created last year; 75 per cent of them, according the Australian Bureau of Statistics, full-time jobs—some 32,700 full-time jobs in the most recent employment statistics.
Now, all of this comes about because Australian businesses are going out there, investing and growing, and they've got the right set of conditions, the right environment and the right policy settings to do exactly that. Our plan for a stronger economy—the plan for a stronger economy that we set out again in this year's budget—is about backing businesses to create local jobs. That's what it's about. Those opposite, the Labor Party, want to attack business; they want to put their taxes up. They think that somehow that's going to incentivise them to create jobs. We know that putting reduced pressure on businesses enables them to go out there and create those jobs. Just like True Blue Glass, who I visited with the member for Forde at Loganholme in his electorate last week, a family business with less than $5 million in turnover and 25 employees. Under this government, they're described as a small business. Their turnover is between $2 million and $10 million. They get the instant asset write-off, which has been extended for a further year. They get to do GST on a cash basis. They get full depreciation. We believe they're a small business; the Labor Party thinks they're a multinational.
It's no different with Coxon's Radiator Service in the member for Capricornia's electorate, a great Australian business run by Julie and Gary. They have a turnover of almost $50 million a year. They employ 35 people. They're not a multinational; they're a great Australian regional small-business success story. And do you know who their biggest clients are? They're BHP and Glencore. And do you know who's going to benefit from all businesses in this country paying more-competitive rates of taxes? Coxon's Radiator Service in Rockhampton. That's who's going to benefit, because we have a plan for a stronger economy over the next decade. We knew that, as a government with the right set of policies, a million jobs could be created in this place. The member for McMahon didn't believe it could happen. He said that we would fall well short of our solemn pledge. Well, the solemn pledge of a million jobs has been delivered by the Turnbull government.
Taxation
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (14:14): My question is to the Prime Minister: Why won't this arrogant and out-of-touch Prime Minister support Labor's personal income tax plan that will give a married couple—one serving in our Defence Forces, earning $90,000—
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my right!
Ms BRODTMANN: These people don't care about the ADF, Mr Speaker—and the other working in aged care on $50,000—a total tax cut of $1,856 a year, almost double the amount they'll get from the government?
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House on a point of order.
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, the government gives the opposition a lot of leeway in terms of its questions, but I would urge you to caution the member for using insults and epithets at the beginning of that question. She's perfectly entitled to ask a question about aged care—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will pause for a second. Members on my left will cease interjecting. The Leader of the House.
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, the member's perfectly entitled to ask her question, but she should not start it with insults and epithets. That's quite outside of the standing orders.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left. I would have thought members on my left would be the last people wanting to delay question time, but they're succeeding. I thank the Leader of the House for his point of order. I'll certainly say this: there are some phrases in questions and, indeed, answers that are less than desirable, but the approach I've taken—and the Leader of the House knows this—is that, whilst I don't think it really adds to our business here in the chamber, if that sort of question is asked, the person asking it should expect at least equal treatment in the reply. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McEwen—I don't understand what he said, but he's warned anyway. He's too loud! The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:17): I thank the honourable member for her question. The government's plan for personal income tax is a long-term plan that makes the personal income tax system fairer and provides more incentives for Australians to get ahead, to get a raise, to get another job, to take a promotion, to work some overtime, to start a business. The honourable member mentioned a worker on $50,000 a year. That worker would receive $530 back next year as a tax refund under the government's plan. But, more importantly and over the longer term, the worker the honourable member talks about is going to know that she will be working in an environment where 94 per cent of Australians will not pay a marginal tax rate on an extra dollar more than 32½c. That is the reform and that is going to mean that, from $41,000 all the way up to $200,000, a marginal rate of 32½c will apply. It will provide enormous incentives for people to get ahead. It's not as low as the tax rate that the Leader of the Opposition recommended years ago—he thought there should be a top tax rate of 30 per cent—but it is 32½ per cent. And, of course, it isn't unlimited as he proposed years ago; it stops at $200,000, where the 45c marginal rate commences.
The Labor Party have made a number of false statements about our personal income tax reform. One of them—which has been comprehensively debunked, of course, but bears repeating—is that this is unfair. A person on $200,000 under our reforms will pay nearly 13 times as much tax as somebody on $41,000. They'll earn a little less than five times as much but pay nearly 13 times as much tax. In fact, taxpayers in the 45c tax category will pay a higher personal of total personal income tax receipts than they do today.
This is a plan that is thought out. It's considered. It is long term, and it provides the assurance that we will be respecting and encouraging the incentive and the enterprise, the spirit, that have delivered us 1,013,600 jobs since the coalition came into office. And that is the spirit that the Labor Party would crush with their job-destroying, antibusiness program. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Denison, I just want to briefly take the time of the House to add to my earlier comments in response to the Leader of the House with respect to his objection to that question. I should point out two things. There's certainly precedence for those sorts of questions, as much as I think some of the language is unnecessary. But the other point I'd make is that there is some language in some of the answers from ministers with respect to the Leader of the Opposition that I find unnecessary as well. If I think it's becoming a big distraction in the chamber, I certainly will take action on both sides. But I don't want to, at this point, censure debate.
Tasmania: Floods
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (14:20): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, the damage bill from the severe weather event and subsequent flooding in Greater Hobart on 10 and 11 May has now reached many tens of millions of dollars. Can you advise the House of the emergency arrangements the federal government has enacted? Can you also confirm that people affected by the awful event—including the local councils—will have the full cooperation and assistance of the federal government in accessing government support, including funding? And do you commit to instructing officials to respond with a real sense of urgency?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:21): I thank the honourable member for his question, and I want to commend the people of Hobart and surrounding areas for their resilience in dealing with the region's worst storm in many decades. So often, natural disasters throw nature's worst at communities, but at the same time, when nature throws its worst at Australians, it brings out the very best in the Australian character.
I can confirm that the Commonwealth and Tasmanian governments have activated assistance under the jointly funded National Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements. The Commonwealth and Tasmanian governments acted swiftly, announcing the assistance on 14 May—as the honourable member, I'm sure, is aware. The assistance includes grants for people on low incomes to help with temporary living expenses and replacing essential household items and grants for repair, restoration and clean-up. It provides assistance for local councils to help them with the cost of removing debris from residential properties to make them safe and habitable and restoring essential public assets such as roads and bridges.
The assistance is available in the six local government areas of Clarence, Derwent Valley, Glenorchy, Hobart, Huon Valley and Kingborough. The federal government is working closely with the Tasmanian government to assess the impact of the floods and to identify any further recovery assistance that may be needed. My government, as the honourable members know, works with all state governments to make sure they have the support they need in the wake of these natural disasters, and it's the responsibility of the state and territory governments, for their part, to work directly with local councils.
I think I can speak for the honourable member—and indeed all members—when I say to the emergency personnel and the volunteers who give up their time, who courageously put their own lives at risk and their personal safety at risk and coordinate the logistics to keep people safe, rescue them and protect their property in the times of these disasters: once again, thank you. We must never forget that they bring out the very best of the Australian character in the way they volunteer and take on these storms and fires and floods, and they do so because of their love for and commitment to their fellow Australians. Time and again, in the face of these storms and natural disasters and fires, Australians show grace under pressure and bravery in the face of danger and rally without a second thought to help each other.
Infrastructure
Mr HOGAN (Page—Deputy Speaker) (14:24): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on recent announcements of nation-building and job-creating regional infrastructure, including in New South Wales? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Leader of The Nationals) (14:24): I'd be happy to update the member for Page on our nation-building infrastructure program. I'd also be happy to update him on any alternatives. The answer to both is jobs—a million jobs. How exciting is that—a million jobs created under this government's policies by small and medium family enterprises, not necessarily by government but by business. And the alternative I'm asked about is also about losing jobs, making sure that the road and rail projects that we're putting into place will be in jeopardy if those opposite get into power.
The member for Page was there last week at the Coffs Harbour Bypass announcement, along with the member for Cowper. There was $971 million to that project, which is going to save lives, ease congestion and make sure that people get to their destinations sooner and safer. That $971 million is going to create hundreds upon hundreds of jobs in the construction phase. We're delivering nation-building infrastructure through our $75 billion decade-long infrastructure pipeline. That's all about creating jobs in the construction phase, connecting regional communities—that's even more jobs—and making sure that people get home sooner and safer. That's what it's all about.
I'm asked about the actual pipeline. We look at the $3½ billion for roads of strategic importance—not necessarily national highways but indeed those secondary link roads in regional Australia, connecting regional communities and connecting farm gates to ports to markets. There is $1 billion for the M1 Pacific Motorway upgrades, $600 million for the Northern Australia Roads Program, and $744½ million for the Black Spot Program—again, a program saving lives. I was in Darwin standing on the corner of Lee Point Road and Union Terrace. That's a black spot funding program that is going to save lives. It will. The intersection has already cost one life and far too many casualties. It's been identified by government, and it will be fixed. There is $4.8 billion for the Roads to Recovery program, enabling local councils to decide which roads they feel are in need of an upgrade.
While I was in Darwin, I chaired the Transport and Infrastructure Council meeting. We all agreed to work together, and there were ministers of all political persuasions delighted at the budget announcements, delighted at the $75 billion worth of infrastructure rollout that we're doing, and prepared to work collaboratively and cooperatively with the Commonwealth to ensure that we roll out that pipeline, to ensure that we connect regional communities and to ensure that we ease congestion in our capital cities. That's what we're getting on with the job of doing—creating jobs, creating better infrastructure and building a better Australia.
Taxation
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (14:27): My question is to the Prime Minister: Why won't this arrogant and out-of-touch Prime Minister support Labor's personal income plan that would give a childcare worker earning $50,000 a tax cut of $928 a year, almost double the amount they'll get from the government?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:28): I thank the honourable member for her question. The honourable member is part of a team—a Labor team—that is going—
Ms Rishworth: And proud.
Mr TURNBULL: She said she's proud of it—proud of going after self-funded retirees' savings and proud of raiding the life's earnings of grandmothers and grandfathers. She's proud. She is so proud. She's proud of cutting the income of the lady in her 80s I was with in Queanbeyan recently by 28 per cent. That's what the Leader of the Opposition and his team—his proud team—want to do. They want to rip $5 billion a year out of the savings of older Australians. They want to do that so they can fund their reckless spending plans, and they want to pose now as cutting taxes. Well, Australians know the Labor Party, and they know their leader very well. They do. They know he can't be trusted. Think about this: I talked about how he's switched sides on company tax. What about the Fair Work legislation? In 2008 the Leader of the Opposition said—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
Mr Burke: It's on direct relevance, on your previous rulings about the policy topic having to be kept to. I think we're already way off.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House is not helping. The question was, with an undesirable lead-in, about taxation. The Prime Minister has been talking about taxation. I'm going to hear from the Leader of the House on the point of order.
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, I don't want to make this an ongoing saga but, further to the rulings you've made previously in question time, the question began with epithets about the Prime Minister's character. That means that by asking such a question they open up a very wide gamut to which the Prime Minister is entitled to respond. It was not just a question about personal income taxes. It was also a question about the Prime Minister's character, and he is responding to that part of the question. If they don't want him to do so they shouldn't put those epithets in the question.
The SPEAKER: I think that is a reasonable point. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr TURNBULL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In 2008 the Leader of the Opposition, when a minister in the Labor governments, said the Fair Work Act would:
… create workplaces where our children will do better, not worse, than we used to and in which prosperity expands and embraces us all.
It was really touching actually, very touching.
But he doesn't say that anymore—oh no. Now, when he turns up to the controlling shareholders meeting—that is to say, meeting with the CFMEU—he describes these selfsame Fair Work laws as a cancer which need to be rewritten. So laws 'where our children will do better, not worse, in which prosperity expands and embraces us all'—a sort of nirvana, happiness for everybody—that was in 2008. Now, because he's answering to the call of his paymasters, he says those very same laws, written by a government in which he was a minister, are a cancer and must be abandoned. It is no wonder nobody believes the Leader of the Opposition.
Budget
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (14:32): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House how the government is acting to make sure retirees and pensioners are given more choice to live longer and healthier lives, especially those in my electorate of Gilmore? Is the Treasurer aware of any other policy alternatives?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:32): I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. This year's budget, once again, provides a clear plan for a stronger economy, because we understand that you need a stronger economy to guarantee the essential services that all Australians rely on, and that includes older Australians—Australians going into their senior years.
Our plan for a stronger economy means that we've got a clear plan to give Australians more choices for a longer life. That's what this budget delivers—more choices for a longer life. That means we're protecting the choices of Australians as they age and we're protecting their dignity as well. Last week I was pleased to join the member for Gilmore in Nowra, as I was the member for Petrie up in North Lakes, where we talked to senior Australians about our new package, our new plan for more choices for a longer life. We went through what those choices were. There is the $10,000 Restart wage subsidy to ensure that, as they age, Australians, if they want to get back into the workforce, have the same sort of subsidy to support them doing so as there is for a younger Australian. We are extending the Pension Loans Scheme, not just to where it was before with part-pensioners, but so that all pensioners, all self-funded retirees, all older Australians of pension age will be in a position to access that program, which for a couple can mean $17,000 in extra income each year. We are increasing the pension Work Bonus, which means that older Australians can earn $1,300 extra a year, and it doesn't touch their pension. Even better, if you're self-employed as an older Australian you can earn $7,800, and it doesn't touch any of your entitlements in relation to the pension. Twenty thousand aged-care places for in-home care—14,000 announced in the budget; 6,000 announced last December. Ensuring that Australians who want to choose to remain in their home, live with their families and enjoy all of the things that they have in their later years can be delivered as well. There is $82½ million for mental health support for Australians living in residential aged care; $146 million for residential aged care in rural and regional areas to ensure that those needs are being met.
So we're a government that's delivering for older Australians to give them more choices and to protect their dignity. The Leader of the Opposition wants to put his grubby hand into their pocket and rip out their tax refunds. It was the one single issue that came up time and again, whether it was in Nowra or North Lakes or elsewhere in the country. They have a clear message for the Leader of the Opposition: 'Get your hands out of our pockets.' It's the single biggest tax measure over the budget and forward estimates. The big bucket of cash he wants to use to spray around the country to buy votes around the country is being paid for by self-funded retirees, by retirees, by pensioners, by small business owners. He's got his hand so deep in their trousers that they are wincing at the prospect of a Labor government. (Time expired)
Ms Madeleine King interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Brand is warned. I remind her to look at the Practice on interjecting when not sitting in her seat.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Well, I'll have a look at the update and check. Just simply: don't take offence, but I won't take the word of the member for Moreton.
Budget
Dr ALY (Cowan) (14:36): My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is the Prime Minister giving an $80 billion handout to big business instead of supporting Labor's personal income tax plan which will leave middle-income Australians better off? Why is this arrogant and out-of-touch Prime Minister looking after big business instead of middle-income Australians?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:36): I thank the honourable member for her question. The honourable member represents the seat of Cowan in Western Australia and she understands very well, I would hope, the importance of business investment, entrepreneurship and enterprise, and she should understand that the growth in jobs across our nation and particularly in Western Australia following the downturn, the inevitable downturn, of the mining construction boom has been based on hardworking Australian businesses investing and having a go—overwhelmingly Australian owned family businesses. These are the businesses that her leader wants to tax even more. We have reduced taxes on businesses with turnovers up to $50 million a year. She is a member of a party that wants to increase taxes on those businesses. So she's got to go out across Cowan and go to all those family businesses and say, 'The Labor Party wants you to pay more tax.' When the honourable member does that, do you think those businesses are going to say, 'Oh, that's terrific. In that case we'll hire some more people'? No, they won't. What the Labor Party is doing is putting at risk the jobs that have been created since September 2013—the 1,013,600 jobs; the fastest, largest jobs growth in our nation's history in 2017. All of that is being put at risk by an antibusiness tax grab from the Labor Party: over $200 billion—taxes on grannies and grandpas. Yes, it is. They're going after them: retirees, self-funded retirees. And the honourable member would have quite a few of those in her electorate. She should perhaps go to a seniors meeting—
Dr Aly interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: Oh, the honourable member's calling back. Apparently, in Cowan older Australians are looking forward to giving 28 per cent of their income to a Labor government. They're lining up!
I would never challenge the honourable member on this matter, but having been to Cowan on a few occasions, I have to say I find her version of events quite implausible. I have no doubt that older Australians, whether in Cowan, Maribyrnong or any other electorate in this House, expect respect and support, and will not accept a government that goes after their savings. (Time expired)
Employment
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (14:40): My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry, representing the Minister for Jobs and Innovation. Will the minister outline to the House the results of the government's unrelenting focus on supporting the creation of more jobs in our economy, including in my electorate of Corangamite? Is the minister aware of any other approaches?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (14:40): I thank the member for Corangamite for her question. This government has created over a million new jobs in the last 4½ years—five months ahead of the promise we took to the 2013 election. It is a remarkable achievement. In places like Corangamite, which the member represents—I visited there last Friday—a firm called Fibre Tech, which is in the defence industry area, is benefiting from the decisions this government is making in the largest mobilisation of our defence and defence industry in our peacetime history, driving jobs, innovation and technology that are helping the economy to create those over one million jobs, five months ahead of schedule.
This achievement is very much placed at risk by the Leader of the Opposition's secret agreement with the CFMEU. The Leader of the Opposition has a secret agreement with the CFMEU, which he has refused to reveal to the Australian public. It is his responsibility to release that secret agreement so Australians can see what the Leader of the Opposition has promised John Setka and the CFMEU in exchange for their support. We know that John Setka only on the weekend said on Sky News that unions should operate outside the law. Remarkably, as an aside he also said that he didn't trust the Leader of the Opposition either. You'd think a person with a secret agreement with the Leader of the Opposition, who has given $2.5 million in donations to the Labor Party since the Leader of the Opposition has been in that role, would have some ounce of trust for the Leader of the Opposition, but even he, along with the rest of the Australian public, doesn't trust this Leader of the Opposition. Peter Beattie said on the weekend that the Labor Party should not take donations from the CFMEU. Bob Hawke said that, if he were leader of the Labor Party, he would expel the CFMEU from the ALP like he did with the BLF. This Leader of the Opposition is placing that jobs growth at risk because he insists on bringing in the CFMEU on all major decisions made by the Labor Party. He owes it to the Australian public to release the secret agreement he has with the CFMEU. It's time the Leader of the Opposition came clean with the Australian people and told them exactly what he has promised John Setka—a man who has had 59 convictions for civil and criminal offences over the last few years—and the CFMEU in exchange for the power that they've given him within the Labor Party.
Taxation
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:43): My question is to the Treasurer. Given it is now almost two weeks since the Treasurer delivered his budget, can the Treasurer now provide figures for the year-by-year cost of each stage of his seven-year personal income tax scheme? If not, how can he expect the parliament to vote for his scheme?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:43): I refer the member to my earlier answers on this point. I note that it is always one rule for the Labor Party and another rule for everyone else. I'm looking here at:
Labor's plan to crack down on tax loopholes, protect pensioners, and pay for schools and hospitals
I'm also looking at what they call:
A Fairer Tax System: dividend imputation reform
For all these policies they have provided a 10-year estimate and a four-year estimate, but no year-by-year estimates after the four years. They expect the government to do something they don't do themselves.
But, more than that, they released policies on negative gearing and CGT back in 2016. Did they release the PBO costings? No. For family tax benefit B, did they release the costings from the PBO? No. The Making Superannuation Fairer package—no, they haven't released that. Tobacco taxes—no, they didn't release that. The half a per cent Medicare increase in the top two tax brackets—they never released that. The trusts tax of 2017—they didn't release that. The retirees tax of 2018—they didn't release that. The Labor Party think that they can run the country like they run unions—one rule for the union bosses and one rule for everyone else. The union bosses get the credit cards; the union workers get the bills. That's what we get from the Labor Party. They come in here knowing full well how budgets work. Well, I assume the shadow Treasurer knows how they work, and he will understand exactly what the policies are.
What our tax plan does is provide real reward for effort. It's a plan, a real plan, that deals with real problems in the tax system. It deals with bracket creep, which the opposition seems not too willing to engage with us on. Under our plan, someone on full-time average wages will be paying less tax over the next 10 years. Under their plan, they will get swallowed up by bracket creep. That's what will happen with Labor's plan. Labor should support the government in addressing bracket creep, in ensuring that, as Australians put extra effort in and extra hours in, they shouldn't have to pay higher rates of tax. Under our full plan, 94 per cent of Australians will face no higher than 32½c as their marginal rate of tax. That's a plan. What we've got in our budget is a plan for a stronger economy; it's a plan to reward Australians who are working harder and expect to keep the money they've earned, and the Labor Party just wants to rip it away from them.
Migration
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (14:46): My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the Minister update the House on the steps the government has taken to protect Australian families from dangerous visa holders? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:47): I thank the honourable member for his question and for the hard work he does in his electorate of Flynn. As all Australians know, we've been able to stop boats and stop the drownings at sea, and get children out of detention centres and close 17 detention centres, and in securing our borders we've now turned our attention to making sure that we can cancel visas of criminals onshore who have committed serious offences against Australian citizens. We don't want people coming to our country who are going to victimise Australians. We don't want people coming to our country who are going to involve themselves in criminal activity.
One of the areas of concentration for us has been the cancellation of the visas of outlaw motorcycle gang members who are here as noncitizens. I can update the House today and say that so far we've cancelled 181 of those visas. It's important for a number of reasons. One of the principal activities of members of outlaw motorcycle gangs is the importation and distribution of the horrendous drug ice—a scourge right across the country, but in particular in regional areas.
One of the other main areas of endeavour for outlaw motorcycle gang members is to work in conjunction with members of the CFMEU. They work with the CFMEU because many elements of the CFMEU are also criminal in nature and they are involved in extortion on building sites around the country. If you follow the web, who else is associated with the CFMEU? The Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition is cosy with the CFMEU because they support his position. At the conference, he can't get his position on policy up, particularly in relation to boats—he didn't at the last conference—without the bloc of the CFMEU. If only it stopped there. The reality is that the Labor Party accepts millions and millions of dollars from the CFMEU. I notice, reading the fine journal The Courier-Mail this morning, that it had this wonderful story—
The SPEAKER: The minister knows the rules on props.
Mr DUTTON: That's a fair point, Mr Speaker, but let me read it to you. It says: 'Stop this unholy union. $2.4 million in fines, judges at wit's end, but ALP still pockets their cash.'
Nobody in this country, nobody in this place, nobody who has had any dealings with this Leader of the Opposition can trust a word that he says. The fact is that the CFMEU are tolerated in a way that they would never have been under any former Labor leader. He accepts their cash and he accepts their direction. The Australian people should never trust this man.
The SPEAKER: The minister needs to withdraw that last part of his answer where he said the Leader of the Opposition accepted their cash.
Mr DUTTON: Mr Speaker, I withdraw.
Budget
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (14:50): My question is to the Treasurer. What is the total cost of corporate tax cuts over 10 years from 1 July this year, both legislated and proposed to be legislated by this government?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:50): I further amend my previous answers to this question for the simple reason that we have no policy to increase the rate of corporate tax in Australia. We have no such policy. The government hasn't gone and costed a policy to increase taxes on small businesses, medium businesses or large businesses. We're not doing that. That is the Labor Party's policy. The Labor Party's policy, as recent and as minted as the Leader of the Opposition's presentation at the despatch box after the budget, is to increase taxes on all businesses with a turnover of over $2 million in this country.
If the Labor Party were ever to occupy these benches, and if the shadow Treasurer became the Treasurer, what would be the single biggest revenue earner over the budget and forward estimates? Would it be putting up taxes on big banks and businesses? No, it wouldn't be. It wouldn't be that at all. Would it be, indeed, lifting the marginal tax rate on the highest income earners in Australia? It wouldn't be that either. It wouldn't come close. Would it be on family businesses, on family trusts? No, it wouldn't be that. Would it be negative gearing and capital gains tax increases? All of this does add up to a lot of tax, I admit. There are a lot of taxes coming from that side.
The single biggest revenue measure—the single biggest tax slug—that the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party are going to put on Australians in their first budget, if they are elected, over the budget and forward estimates is on retirees. Over $10 billion—and that's just two years! They're just cranking it up. Retirees will be forced, under the Labor Party's policy, to get their shovels out and put their hard-earned money into the Leader of the Opposition's pockets so he can run around and make big political promises.
But Australians understand this Leader of the Opposition. They know how shifty he is. They know he's shifty when it comes to using other people's money to try and put forward and promote his own political agenda. He is unbelievable. He is completely 'Unbelieva-Bill'.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Treasurer will withdraw. I know he's used that phrase outside the parliament.
Mr TURNBULL: I misspoke, Mr Speaker. I withdraw.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I really don't expect the member for Griffith, who interjects frequently, to be giving me advice on discipline in the House.
Budget
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (14:53): My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Will the minister update the House on how the government's tax policies encourage and reward hardworking Australians, including those in my electorate of Bennelong? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, Minister for Women and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) (14:54): I thank the member for Bennelong for his question and I note that, like everyone on this side of the chamber, he is absolutely focused on ensuring the prosperity of all Australians through our enterprise tax plan, making sure that we back businesses to invest in those businesses and also making sure that government lives within its means so that we have prudent fiscal management. It is because of our economic plan that we have seen more than a million jobs delivered—a promise that we have made on this side of the chamber that has been delivered by a coalition government. It is a significant achievement. Of all of those businesses who work incredibly hard and who employ hardworking Australians.
But we on this side of the chamber believe in rewarding hard work and aspiration. We believe in doing that through making sure that they don't pay one more dollar of tax than they absolutely need to. That is why, under our first stage of our personal income tax plan, around 10 million working Australians will see lower, fairer and simpler taxes. By the end of our tax plan, we will see around 94 per cent of Australians face a marginal tax rate of no more than 32½c in the dollar. The only thing standing between those millions of Australians and their tax relief is those sitting opposite. It will take one vote here in the House of Representatives and one vote in the Senate.
Of course, the member asks, 'Are there any alternative approaches?' There is one, and that is from those sitting opposite. It is higher taxes: higher taxes on retirees, on homeowners, on small- and medium-sized enterprises, on family businesses and on all Australians through their retirement savings. In total, those opposite will put their hand in the pockets of millions of Australians and pick more than $200 billion worth from those people who have worked hard for that money.
And they don't just have that terrible indignity that they want to impose on Australians. They also want Australians to believe that they have going to somehow deliver a surplus. I ask those in the chamber, 'What do these five things have in common: the internet, the European Union, the Hubble Space Telescope, The Simpsons TV show and the Harry Potter series?' Not one of those things existed when those opposite last delivered a surplus 29 years ago. The Leader of the Opposition treats the Australian people as mugs, but they are not mugs. They know all about his rolled-gold promises and they know he cannot be trusted.
Vocational Education and Training
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:57): My question is to the Prime Minister. In responding to Labor's plan to provide 100,000 fee-free TAFE places, the Minister for Education criticised vocational education prices that covered 'everything from energy healing to basket weaving'. Is this the government's view of TAFE and vocational education and is this why this arrogant and out-of-touch Prime Minister cutting another $270 million from TAFE and apprenticeships in this year's budget on top of the existing $3 billion of cuts to skills?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (14:58): When Labor was last in office they saw the largest single decline in apprentice and trainee numbers on record: a 22 per cent fall when Labor was last in office. Between 2011 and 2013, Labor was responsible for cuts of $1.2 billion. Then, when Labor put forward its alternative plan, there was no detail around it except that we know there are $200 billion of extra taxes. The Turnbull government will be establishing a new, ongoing $1½ billion skilling Australians fund. We'll create up to 300,000 apprentices over the next four years. We will ensure through the $70 billion-plus of infrastructure spending that there are new jobs for these apprentices and for Australians around the country.
We've also introduced a number of other measures to support apprentices such as the $900 million Australian Apprenticeship Support Network to support employers to recruit, train and retain apprentices. We've introduced trade support loans, which have seen over 53,000 apprentices access up to $20,000 each in government support for their apprenticeships. We don't just talk about doing something for apprentices; we actually deliver, while Labor's promises are always on the never-never.
Trade
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (14:59): My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister outline to the House the impact of the government's trade policies on job creation? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (15:00): I thank the member for Bonner for his question. He's passionate about job opportunities for Australians, especially in export industries. In fact, I remember going with the member for Bonner to Grove Juice. Grove Juice is another great example of an Australian small- to medium-sized enterprise that's scoring export success. They are another Australian business that will be advantaged because of the coalition's vision when it comes to company tax cuts.
We know that one in five Australian jobs are trade related. You'll excuse me for taking a little bit of time to explain to the Labor Party what 'one in five' actually means. We saw some difficulty, from the brains trust over there, on the night of the budget reply with their one in five. We all remember they put together a collective—the Labor Party are big fans of collectives. One, two, three, three, five—it was so close. We do trust you with managing the nation's finances. I'm sure it'll be absolutely fine for the nation's finances to be in your hands. Notwithstanding that, one in five jobs are in trade related industries.
We've seen one million jobs created under this coalition government, which means 200,000 extra jobs created in trade related industries. Two hundred thousand more Australians are now appreciative of the fact that, thanks to the coalition government's vision with respect to free trade agreements, we are actually making sure that, together with Australian businesses, we are creating jobs for mums, dads, sons and daughters. That's the record of delivery of this coalition government.
The member for Bonner asked about alternatives. Unfortunately, there are some alternatives. Labor's proposal with respect to Australia's trade agenda is to effectively tear it up. Labor said that they are going to renegotiate our trade deals. In fact, the shadow minister for trade ran around saying, 'The coalition did the TPP-11, but if Labor get to government we're going to renegotiate it all.' They're going to put at risk, they are going to put in jeopardy, all of the job creation that this government has put in place by the surge in exports that we've been able to lock in, thanks to this government's forward-leaning agenda on trade—new trade deals with Singapore, with the TPP-11, with Korea, with Japan, with China and with Peru. We're about to start a trade negotiation with the European Union and we are, hopefully, very close to concluding a deal with Indonesia. That's this government's track record of delivering on trade, of delivering on jobs and of creating a more competitive economic framework through lower taxes, which ensures 200,000 more Australians have jobs as a consequence.
Vocational Education and Training
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (15:03): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will this arrogant and out-of-touch Prime Minister support Labor's plan to cover upfront fees for 100,000 TAFE places to train Australians for jobs that have been languishing on the business skills shortage list for years and years?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:03): I thank the honourable member for her question. The government is not going to be taking lectures on vocational education from the Labor Party. The Labor government left us with a complete debacle, with billions of dollars being advanced in loans for courses that had little or no value, to people who had no prospect of ever being able to repay them. It was a complete catastrophe. We're cleaning up that mess and putting vocational education on the right track. I refer the honourable member to the answer of the minister just a few moments ago.
Budget
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (15:04): My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government. Will the minister update the House on how regional Australians, including in my electorate of O'Connor, will benefit from the budget and a stronger economy? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Dr McVEIGH (Groom—Minister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government) (15:04): I thank the member for O'Connor for his question. The 2018-19 budget will in fact deliver in spades for the good people who call the vast electorate of O'Connor home. From Albany to Arthur River and Kalgoorlie to Katanning, the coalition government has a plan for a stronger economy right throughout O'Connor and right through regional Australia.
We are backing regional Australia, and in particular we're backing the Building Better Regions Fund. Following the success of round 1 of this fund, over 20,000 jobs were created throughout regional Australia. The second round is currently under consideration and assessment. We've now, through the budget, locked in another $200 million for the third round of the Building Better Regions Fund. This means more projects, more opportunities and more jobs throughout regional Australia. All members throughout the House would also welcome another round of the Stronger Communities Program, which has already seen over 5,000 local job-creating community projects and infrastructure projects created across the country—great news for families, great news for local communities and great news for local economies.
We won't stop there. We're delivering for regional Australia right across the board. As the Treasurer and the Deputy Prime Minister have announced, there is the $75 billion infrastructure pipeline, the $24½ billion of funding in place for new major projects and initiatives, $3.5 billion for roads of strategic importance, and $250 million for the Major Project Business Case Fund. I'm excited about the budget. I'm excited about regional Australia.
I'm asked if there are any alternative approaches. Well, it's pretty obviously that the other side of the House don't even have a plan for the regions. They prefer to cuddle up to inner city Greens. They prefer to threaten the jobs of those hardworking Australians in the mining industry. They prefer to support ridiculous vegetation management legislation brought down by Queensland Labor and threaten to take it across the country, therefore threatening the livelihoods of farmers right across our nation. The opposition leader would rather force Australians onto the dole queue than stand up to those Greens and those inner city activists who now run his party. He has no plan for regional Australia. He has no ideas at all. (Time expired)
Budget
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:04): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's $17 billion cut to schools is going to hit public schools the hardest, and Catholic Education said today that the government's school funding model:
… delivers funding cuts to hundreds of Catholic schools … This will deliver a hit to cost of living for many parents through increased fees.
Why is this Prime Minister pursuing an arrogant and out-of-touch policy of cutting $17 billion from schools whilst giving $17 billion to the big banks alone?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:08): Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. The Labor Party and its leader constantly claim that there are cuts in the budget to schools when in fact our needs-based funding model for schools delivers an additional $24.5 billion over the next 10 years, support for government's schools rises from $7.7 billion to $9.7 billion from 2018-19 to 2021-22, and support for non-government schools rises from $11.8 billion to $13.8 billion from 2018-19 to 2021-22. All of that is in the budget papers, so the proposition that schools funding is being cut is untrue. It is untrue. Schools funding is going up every year. As far as Catholic schools are concerned, there are record levels of recurrent funding for Catholic schools, totalling $6.6 billion this year and rising to $9.2 billion in 2027, and funding will grow by around four per cent per student per year on average over four years.
Skilled Migration Program
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (15:09): My question is to the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Moore will pause for a second. Members on my left will cease interjecting. The member for Moore will begin again.
Mr GOODENOUGH: My question is to the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the importance of skilled migration in supporting businesses and regions to grow when no Australians are available? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) (15:10): I thank the member for Moore for his question. It was great to visit his electorate a few weeks ago and hear from locals about their skills needs in northern Perth. Around the country, we're seeing the job creation policies of the Turnbull government in action. There are jobs being created in every city, in every town and in every state around the country. A million jobs have been created since we came to government. But what this means is that, in some regions and some industries, they're actually finding it difficult to find workers. There are simply more jobs being created than workers that are available. In Kalgoorlie, for example—in the member for O'Connor's electorate—there are 500 positions which are vacant in the WA Goldfields area. The tech industry tell me similar things. In some regions, such as the member for Leichhardt's electorate, which I visited, very unique skills are being required, such as Mandarin speaking scuba-diving instructors because the Chinese tourism is so great up in that area.
The government's policy is to prioritise Australians for Australian jobs but, when none are available, to support businesses to sponsor people into the country. So, consequently, we're putting labour agreements into place for key industries. We're working on regional agreements in the member for O'Connor's and the member for Leichhardt's electorates and we've announced a global talent scheme in order to attract high-end talent to support innovation. These are all carefully calibrated policies to address the labour market tightening.
I'm asked about alternatives. While we've got a carefully calibrated policy to adjust to labour market demands, the reverse occurred when Labor were in government. When Labor were in government, they actually saw not an increase in jobs but a decrease in jobs in their last term in office. Seventeen thousand jobs were destroyed in their last term in office. The welfare queues extended by 250,000 people under the Labor Party. And while that was going on—while jobs were in decline and welfare queues were going up—what do you think was going on in terms of foreign workers coming into the country? You'd think you wouldn't need many, wouldn't you? But, no. They had record numbers of foreign workers coming in on 457 visas, despite the job market going backwards and welfare queues increasing. Who was in charge at that time, when that was going on? Who was the workplace relations minister at that particular time overseeing this? It was none other than the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, who wants to implement these policies should he get back into government.
The SPEAKER: The minister will refer to members by their correct titles.
Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
Federal By-Elections
The SPEAKER (15:13): Before members leave, I'd like to make a brief statement to update the House. I have advised the House that, following the receipt of five resignations, of the members for Braddon, Fremantle, Longman, Mayo and Perth, I would undertake the usual practice of consulting with the Australian Electoral Commissioner on possible dates for the by-elections and consulting with party leaders about my preferred date. The earliest possible date for the by-elections is 23 June, if the writs are issued today. However, the Electoral Commissioner has advised me that, in light of the issues to do with section 44 of the Constitution that have caused four of the five by-elections, the government is considering urgent changes through regulation to the nomination process to ensure that candidates are aware of their obligations under section 44 prior to the by-elections taking place.
The commissioner has advised me that he supports these changes. I note they have also been supported unanimously in the recent report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which has proposed that they should be in place for the forthcoming by-elections to improve public trust and confidence.
As this regulation is not yet in force, there would be no possibility of applying it if by-elections were held on 23 June, and consequently I consider that I should not proceed to issue the writs today for the by-elections to be held on 23 June. I will continue to consult with the commissioner and party leaders about the timing of the by-elections, and I hope to be able to update the House later this week.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
Federal By-Elections
Mr BURKE (Watson) (15:15): I have a question to the Speaker.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: If members could cease interjecting, I'm trying to give the Manager of Opposition Business the call.
Mr BURKE: Thanks, Mr Speaker. Thank you for making that statement to the House. I respect the procedure that you said you would follow in terms of who you would consult. The advice you just referred to from the Australian Electoral Commission creates a situation where government policy can hold up whether or not a seat is filled.
When the member for Bennelong resigned, a by-election was called two days later. For the seat of New England, it was called on the same day that the High Court handed down its decision. For Batman, it was six days after. Indeed, if a general election is called, once that is agreed with the Governor-General, everything can happen within 33 days, and it happens immediately.
That being the case, and respecting the independence of your role as Speaker—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will cease interjecting.
Mr BURKE: I do have to raise the issue that it is now taking longer to fill five seats than it would take to fill 150, and we are currently in a situation where the government could delay a regulation for as long as they wanted, and that would determine when a by-election was held.
The SPEAKER (15:17): Let me just address that question as quickly as I can. I'll make a couple of statements because I'll deal with the substance of the question. The last part of my statement the Manager of Opposition Business should acquaint himself with, and that is that I'll continue to consult with the commissioner and party leaders, and I hope to be able to update the House later this week. I think that answers the substance of his question.
Let me also point out to the Manager of Opposition Business and all members the process that Speakers normally undertake. Their obligation is to advise the House of resignations and then to advise the House once writs have been issued. I've taken this course of action today because the events are unusual, given the circumstances, and as a courtesy to the House. That's why I've done that.
Can I also say, as frankly as I can, that my duty is to consult with the Australian Electoral Commissioner. I realise that lots of people have lots of opinions on this matter, but I would be very surprised if any members of the House thought that I should not consult with the Electoral Commissioner or indeed that I should ignore his advice. I'll update the House later in the week. That's my expectation. Out of courtesy to all members of the House, I wanted to give this update today.
Member for Brand
Member for Moreton
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (15:19): Speaker, I ask this in the context of being very happy with the Brisbane Lions winning their game of football yesterday, as—
The SPEAKER: Just don't mention the AFL, please.
Mr PERRETT: I thought that might have been why your mood was a little bit askew, perhaps, Speaker, because I helpfully pointed out that the member for Brand is in her new position, and you made a comment. I just wondered if you could explain your response to my helpful suggestion—which was an interjection, I know.
The SPEAKER (15:19): It was an interjection; that's true. Indeed, as it turns out, I'm happy to confirm that it was a helpful interjection. The member for Moreton was right. Can I just say, I made the statement I did because the member for Moreton and I get on pretty well, despite political differences. We have a lot of banter here when he's doing his job as a teller. I'm glad he's asked me the question, because I wouldn't want people to think that the member for Moreton is not honest. I've always found him to be honest.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Reports Nos 38, 39, 40 and 41 of 2017-18
The SPEAKER (15:20): I present the Auditor-General's Audit reports for 2017-18 entitled Audit report No. 38, Performance audit—Mitigating insider threats through personnel security: Across entities; Audit report No. 39, Performance audit—Naval construction programs—Mobilisation: Department of Defence; Audit report No. 40, Assurance review—Achieving value for money from the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Recovery Program: Department of Jobs and Small Business; and Audit report No. 41, Performance audit—Efficiency through Contestability Programme: Across entities. Details of the reports will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:20): A documents is tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the document will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2018-2019
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019
Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2017-2018
Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2017-2018
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (15:22): This budget reminds me of something that was once said by the Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw. He remarked, about the first night of a play that he had written—it had gone down very badly and the reviews were terrible—that the show was excellent but the audience was poor. The same could be said of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer; they think that their budget is excellent and that the Australian public can't see its brilliance. That's the trouble in relation to this budget.
We've got a situation where the budget is neither fair nor responsible. The unemployment rate has gone up to 5.6 per cent, and is much higher in parts of the country, particularly in working-class and middle-class communities. We've got a situation where the ABS data shows that wages are stagnant. We've got a situation where, according to the latest data, wages are only growing at a rate of about 2.1 per cent per annum. Profits are going up much higher and, indeed, the government wants to give big business massive tax cuts. It seems strange and inconsistent to the Australian public that that's the case. We've got a situation where wage rises for the Public Service in the December 2017 quarter were 2.3 per cent, compared to 3.2 per cent in the December 2016 quarter. So, wage rises are not going up, despite the fact that the budget is quite optimistic about wage rises. In fact, wage rises are diminishing.
The government is optimistic, thinking that the budget will deliver big revenue increases in terms of tax revenue to the budget, when in fact wage rises are abating. They're presiding over consistently low wages growth, but they've got no plans to seriously deal with the problem except support the taking away of penalty rates for 700,000 of the lowest-paid workers in the country. It's a government that doesn't understand dwindling bargaining power and doesn't understand the challenges that working-class people face each and every day in the country.
The government, when they were in opposition, said that they would deliver a surplus in their first year and every year thereafter. They talked about a one per cent surplus. They have failed to deliver that. Having not tackled effectively the challenge to the economy of illegal tobacco, they're optimistic that they are going to bring in more than $3 billion in revenue from a crackdown on illegal tobacco and that that's going to provide for a surplus in years to come. So from a start where they're bringing in virtually no revenue they say they're going to raise an enormous sum of money that way.
This government talked about a debt-and-deficit disaster, but that's not the case, according to them now. They never talk about it. Why not? It must be because they're embarrassed. They must be. We've got a new record for gross debt in this country, which is now $528.3 billion. That is an increase of $255.3 billion under this government from 2013 to 2018—that is, across their tenure on the treasury bench. Do those on the other side of the chamber ever talk about a debt-and-deficit disaster now? They do not—not at all. This is a government which has failed monumentally. Those opposite trumpet jobs and growth. They talk about a billion extra jobs, without actually acknowledging, like respected economist Stephen Koukoulas, that it is in fact population growth that has created this jobs growth. According to this budget, we will have to elect this Prime Minister and this government not just once, not just twice but perhaps three times before most of the tax cuts that they laud in the budget are delivered. This is a government which seems out of touch with the needs of working class Australians.
Those opposite talked about the net debt—not just the gross debt—plenty of times. Net debt for the coming year is double what it was when the government came to power. I will be interested to hear during this appropriations debate speeches from those on the treasury bench about debt-and-deficit disasters, or about debt and deficits at all. We will probably not hear anything from the government, because it has failed monumentally.
Like family budgets, government budgets show the priorities, values, ethics and choices that that government makes. What is the government doing? It is continuing the cuts it has made in the past. It has locked them in once again. What are we seeing? There is $17 billion in cuts to schools. We see the Catholic education system up in arms across the media today. We are seeing $2.2 billion in cuts to universities. I was at the Ipswich Show in my electorate on the weekend, doing a mobile office across three days. I thank the Labor Party campaign workers across Ipswich and the Somerset region who were there with me. I was with the state member for Ipswich, Jennifer Howard, and the member for Ipswich West, Jim Madden, and their staff. I talked to Geraldine Mackenzie, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Southern Queensland, which has a campus in my electorate in Springfield and one in Ipswich. I talked with her about the concerns that the University of Southern Queensland has in relation to that and the challenges it faces.
Then there are the cuts of a billion dollars to the health and hospital services system in this country: cuts to Medicare and the keeping for another year of the rebate freeze on specialists. In my electorate there is TAFE south-west, with its great campus at Bundamba. There has been $270 million in cuts to TAFE and apprentices. And, of course, $80 million has been cut from that beloved institution in Australia the ABC. There has been $1.5 billion in cuts to remote housing, ending a national partnership agreement. It's simply not good enough. As a local federal MP I've got to say that the cuts of $3 billion to aged care that have been locked in are part of the cruel hoax that has been perpetrated upon the aged care sector. Of course, they're onto it now. It took them 24 hours, but they're onto it—the fact that they have funding for 14,000 new in-home aged-care places over four years but all the money comes from within the aged-care budget. There's no new money at all. As in infrastructure, which falls off a cliff in the next few years, there are 3,500 places a year. Not even the government can keep pace with the demand. The waiting list grew by 20,000 in the last six months of last year. Of course, the government want older Australians to work until they're 70 years of age, and they cut the energy supplement of $14 from these older Australians, who should be respected and supported. The cuts to Queensland health, of $160 million, continue. Emergency department visits, cataract extractions, knee replacements and birth assistance are all at risk from this government. We see Medicare statistics showing it costs more to see specialists and GPs.
So this is a government which is out of touch with working-class and middle-class Australians. They should be looking to address these issues, reversing their cuts to public hospitals, reversing their cuts to schools, ending the Medicare rebate freeze and fixing the private health insurance affordability crisis which so many people acknowledge and recognise. Once and for all, they should scrap the tampon tax. It's critical that this government look after older Australians and the health of all Australians, but this government is not doing anything of the sort.
When it comes to income tax, the government are reducing the progressive nature of income tax in this country. The Grattan Institute makes it crystal clear that more than half of the tax cuts the government are proposing go to the top 20 per cent of income earners. Their tax cuts are not skewed, as the ones that Labor proposed in the budget-in-reply speech are, to middle- and working-class Australians.
In the portfolio that I represent as the shadow minister for immigration and border protection, we have seen cuts to the department: $256.3 million over five years. And guess what: it's really interesting because, having—as the secretary of the department said today—created this mega-department, this behemoth department, five months and one day ago, they have actually now decided to put $7 million towards a review of the department they created, which was about the security of the position of one man, the Prime Minister, and not the security of the country. No security agency has recommended to this government that it should create the Department of Home Affairs. So this strategic review of this mega-department was announced in the budget. We've seen inquiries and reports from the Auditor-General, and the department's own RAND Corporation report, criticise the establishment of the department in terms of their efficiencies and effectiveness.
There's no money, of course, in the budget for cybersecurity, despite the fact that the cyber-resilience of the department has failed again and again and we've seen audit report after audit report in relation to it. They've failed to maintain cybersecurity standards since 2014 in the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and now the Department of Home Affairs, and there's no money in the budget in relation to that. It's beyond belief that they tolerate this monumental level of incompetence displayed by the minister and the department secretary on this critical national security issue. Cybersecurity should be at the absolute forefront.
On top of that, the government's been locked in an ongoing dispute with thousands and thousands of Immigration and Border Protection employees over pay and conditions for over four years. They praise the frontline workers, but they won't pay them fairly, and these people have suffered real wage cuts at the hands of this conservative government. We have seen at the same time that internal staff surveys have shown that ABF staff have a deep-seated dissatisfaction with senior management in the department. We are fundamentally concerned with the safety and security of the Australian community. Australia's security and intelligence agencies are amongst the best in the world. We acknowledge that, but we have a minister in the portfolio of Home Affairs who is failing, and the department is failing.
It is not just that. There is also skilled migration. In the member for Aston's answer to the last question to him, what he didn't talk about was the fact that in the budget they've cut $270 million from the Skilling Australians Fund, having got rid of the national partnership. That is all about the fact that they've seen a huge reduction, tens of thousands of apprentices fewer in this country. We have about 150,000 fewer apprentices than when this government came to power. How can you deal with the challenge of skilled migration? How can you deal with the challenge of employment by cutting yet again on top of billions of dollars of cuts to TAFE and tertiary education? On top of that, the government cut another $270 million in the budget. I mean, we actually had to force this government, and they backflipped, to agree to labour market testing. For the first time in my 11 years in this place, the government finally agreed with Labor on labour market testing. We had to drag them kicking and screaming to agree to that in the last week of parliament, but they failed on skilled migration.
What the government are doing here is creating the Skilling Australians Fund. Their primary source of funding for apprenticeships and traineeships is deeply, deeply flawed and insecure because of its reliance on visa levies from overseas workers. They are saying the number of overseas workers is going to reduce but, at the same time—like a magic pudding—they are going to increase the Skilling Australians Fund with the money, so the money goes up but the number of overseas workers goes down. They are increasing levies on business. This is an out-of-touch government when it comes to this issue, completely out of touch. They are not fighting for local workers. They have finally agreed to proper labour market testing but they have not cracked down on the rorts in the migration system. They have failed to invest in skills and training. They have to do so much better in this area.
This government have failed in the budget. I just want to tell people before I finish that, finally last week, we got them to agree to backtrack on their assurance of support to those persons in those communities who apply for visas, which is so important. They tried to surreptitiously get it in, but we put pressure on and they finally backtracked. They moved the goalposts in this. They made these changes without any warning. Labor stood up to them, and they backflipped on that last week. I am pleased about that. It is great to see they finally saw a bit of sense in that area.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (15:37): Australia, Victoria and the Goldstein community have much to celebrate in this year's federal budget. It's a budget that builds on our vision for Australia as a forward-looking modern liberal nation with unparalleled living standards. This budget can be encapsulated in three words: opportunity, security and responsibility—opportunity by delivering three stages of tax cuts by increasing the bracket from $80,000 to $87,000, lifting it to $90,000 next year and then to $200,000 from 2024 to 2025; security by increasing the number of home aged-care packages by 14,000 over four years to give Australians the freedom to choose how they retire and age at home with dignity and choice; and responsibility by introducing a 23.9 per cent tax cap on government spending and delivering a surplus next financial year to start paying back Labor's debt legacy.
Frankly, this has been the best budget since returning to government in 2013. It provides the framework to advance our values through legislative action. The end of the frustrating incremental return to surplus is now in sight. The deadline to start cutting debt has been brought forward a year. Next year, we will finally reverse Labor's debt legacy. We are talking tax relief, better childcare, increased home care for retirees, funding for schools and huge investment in infrastructure. First and foremost, the budget continues to tackle the rising costs of living for households, including in the Goldstein community. While maintaining fiscal discipline and fast tracking our national surplus, we are tackling major tax reform. The budget's bold reforms bring us closer to an ideal setting where taxes are lower, simpler and more consistent for the whole of the Australian community. Indeed, 60,799 taxpayers in the wonderful Goldstein electorate stand to benefit from low- and middle-income tax relief. That the means a hairdresser on 50 grand will have an extra $530 in their hip pocket, increasing to $3,740 over the seven years of this plan.
Cost-of-living pressures are also being relieved as the new childcare system comes into place on 2 July: 4,019 families in the Goldstein electorate will now benefit from more accessible and affordable child care. We know that child care hits the hip pockets of families, but that it also particularly aids and assists women and professional women in the electorate to be able to make choices themselves. And as the government's National Energy Guarantee is implemented, and decades of policy deadlock are finally put to rest, families can also start to benefit from more affordable electricity and gas prices.
But this budget is also backing the 22,112 local businesses in the Goldstein electorate. Business tax cuts will help them to invest, to employ and to pay their workers more. Over a thousand small businesses in Goldstein have previously benefited from the instant asset write-off, and that measure has now been extended for another 12 months.
When business conditions are optimal, the dividends speak volumes in employment, in profits, in opportunity and in investment in communities. The Turnbull government has now delivered more than one million jobs, nearly 1,100 per day. The most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows strong growth in full-time work, and that's particularly important for those returning to work or seeking out their first step on a rung on the ladder of opportunity. We're giving a fair go to those who may not have had one previously. We're giving people the chance to turn their human capital and intellectual capital into economic success and progress.
This budget also addresses the challenges we face as an ageing population. It gives retirees support to keep living in their own homes or helps them relieve financial stress by converting some of their housing equity into an income stream. There are an additional 14,000 places for in-home care, as well as new measures to enhance quality of care and transparency. The Goldstein electorate has 26,314 people over the age of 65; they all deserve dignity and security in their retirement, and as they age throughout their lives.
Australia's cities are developing at a rapid pace and it's the duty of the government to plan for the future. That's what's included in this budget. Investment in nation-building infrastructure is also at record levels. Our population growth rate is about 1.6 per cent a year, but to make sure that we meet the challenges of that growth rate and to make sure that it's sustainable it must be backed up by the investment and infrastructure needed to support a healthy, growing population. When growth is preceded by planning and investment it does wonders for economic prosperity, liveability and social mobility, and for the security of every resident.
Through the Infrastructure Investment Program, $9.7 billion is being rolled out in Victoria alone. It includes $5 billion for the Melbourne Airport Rail Link. Hundreds of constituents in the Goldstein electorate have regularly raised with me their concerns about the absence of an airport rail link and their capacity to be able to connect, whether for business or for pleasure, directly to Melbourne's major air route and hub, to reach not just the rest of the country but the world. This $5 billion investment in the Melbourne Airport Rail Link finally delivers a piece of infrastructure most Victorians believe should have already been delivered many decades ago. It's been in planning for decades and, ultimately, the state government has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to support it by the federal government putting down this $5 billion in matching funding.
There has also been $1.8 billion committed to the North-East rail link, which will deliver benefits, of course, to large parts of Victoria—particularly the northern and eastern suburbs, and connecting out to other areas of the state as well. There is $475 million for the Monash rail project, which, critically, will connect parts of the CBD through to Monash University—the Caulfield campus and then to the Clayton campus as well. I say that with a bit of nostalgia, because many moons ago, when I was a younger gentleman, I served as the president of the Caulfield campus of Monash University. During that time, one of the projects that I actually implemented with university management was to build a bus route directly connecting the campuses. It's nice to see that after many years, that project has gone from an idea to something that was adopted, and from a bus project now to becoming, ultimately, a rail project as well. That's the consequence of legacy and the consequence of leadership, and full points should be given to the Turnbull government for recognising that opportunity.
As well, there is $225 million for the Frankston to Baxter link, which is critical, of course, to the member for Dunkley but also to the people who are part of the growing corridor across the south-east of Melbourne that goes to the different parts of the Mornington Peninsula. Frankston is one of the major hubs that connects to further inland parts as we progress down the peninsula. There is $50 million for the regional rail program and an additional commitment of $132 million for the completion of the duplication of Princess Highway East. There is $3 billion for the East West Link, if that could ever be delivered, because we have the intransigence and obstruction of the Andrews government who have consistently undermined the potential for the development of that important transport link. When you look at a map of Melbourne and see where the road networks are connected, the East West Link is the most critical part of our infrastructure and is completely absent. It stops freight movements and it clogs up roads, which undermines transportation by road across Victoria and particularly across the congested roads of Melbourne.
We pray we will one day see a state government that puts people first, Victorians first, and actually builds this needed road. But, instead, what we have seen consistently is a state government that would rather pay out big corporate interests to not build one. The $3 billion for the East West Link that was committed by the Turnbull government is a recommitment of an important piece of infrastructure that our state desperately needs. There was $295 million as part of the Victorian congestion package to help ease the bottlenecks that sit all across our state. Because the state government is not tackling the bigger challenges in big infrastructure and big roads, these congestion packages will help ease the burden so that parents can get their kids to school easier, they can get from school to work easier and people can go about their business on a day-to-day basis. The increasing burden of congestion along major arterial roads on weekends has now become so bad that the $295 million is absolutely essential.
Locally, the Roads to Recovery Program will assist the Bayside City Council with upgrades to Outer Crescent in Brighton. There have been some other significant capital investments in the Goldstein electorate under this budget, including the upgrade to the Glen Eira Adult Learning Centre, the Caulfield South Community House's hall renovation, upgraded training lights at the Jack Barker Oval, renovations to the Sandybeach community centre and an upgrade to the Alma Park toddler's playground as part of the Stronger Communities Program, which has invested more than $378,451 in the Goldstein electorate.
The budget shines light onto some shadows that are in desperate need of illumination, particularly in dealing with some of the great social challenges that undermine our cohesive society. One in five Australians experience a mental health condition in a given year. Anxiety and depression cause distress, impacting on functioning and relationships on a day-to-day basis and leading to poor physical health. The budget's $92.4 million investment in frontline mental health services includes $33.8 million for Lifeline, $10.5 million for beyondblue and $2.2 million for Defence Force reservists. There's also $125 million assigned for research through the government's Medical Research Future Fund. That's on top of our ongoing commitment to important youth mental health services, particularly the enduring contribution of headspace. We have a headspace centre in Moorabbin.
As Liberals, our vision is to maximise opportunity for every Australian. That means preparing our national accounts for any external economic shocks that threaten job security and opportunity. This budget recommits the majority of new revenue from a strengthening economy to paying down our national debt. That's it. It's the volcano of debt that could erupt unless we continue on our path to surplus, not in 2021, as has been stated in the past, but in 2019-20 and beyond. For the first time in a decade, the government is being very serious about making sure that we no longer borrow to pay back everyday expenses. With the budget back in the black, government services can continue to deliver better health care and education outcomes but, more critically, provide the economic security that every Australian needs. When we have global economic shocks that sometimes are outside of our control, it's the resilience that we build within our budgetary framework in making sure we have flexibility that provides us security into the future.
What we cannot afford to do is be complacent, as those on the opposition benches would have us do. They would have us sit and think it's okay to accumulate debt and the costs of simply financing it without anything to show for it—to borrow from tomorrow to live it up today. It's a form of intergenerational theft, where money is taken from the future to fund our lifestyles today. It's not just that it's unjust; it is immoral and is a position that we should never stand for.
The return to surplus by the Turnbull government is one of the most critical and significant achievements of this government, and it's the biggest gift that it can give to future generations. This budget is a forward-looking, responsible blueprint for a modern liberal Australia. The Goldstein community has consistently voiced concern over the rising costs of living, the lack of infrastructure investment, particularly by the state government, job security and the challenges of an ageing population. But, more critically, it has consistently raised concerns about the challenges facing our budget and wanting to make sure that a government—their government; the nation's government—is prudent and responsible, exercises spending with caution and seeks to minimise expenses that are unnecessary, to return to a position of surplus so we can start to pay back Labor's debt legacy. That is what this budget does: it delivers opportunity, security and responsibility for our great nation. As a government, we have listened and we have acted.
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (15:51): There are occasions in the government's life when a particular budget epitomises everything that they stand for and what their priorities are. We saw such a budget in 2014, when those opposite were first elected to government under former Prime Minister Abbott, and we well remember the legacy of that budget—and so we should because so much of it still exists in the budget we're confronted with in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-19 and the related appropriation bills today. The budget had at its heart unfairness and it did not pass the test not only of this parliament but of the general public's opinion of what it was trying to do. This budget is exactly the same as that previous budget. Plainly on display are the priorities of the government. I'm sure people will excuse me for borrowing the analogy of the member for Gilmore last week—and the member for Gilmore might be surprised to know that most members of the public probably consider that, if the horse is the government, the jockey would be considered to be the Prime Minister, not herself. You can change the jockey on the horse, but, if that horse is running the same race, you're not going to have any different outcome. That's exactly what is happening with the budget that is before us now. The priorities, the wrong values and the wrong approach to the challenges facing the nation that were encapsulated in that very unfair, discredited 2014 budget are still there in all their tarnished glory in the budget that was announced this month by the Prime Minister. It is both sneaky and unfair, and I want to address some of the most significant concerns that I have with the budget.
The first thing that it puts in headlights before the Australian people is the fact that the government are committed to an $80 billion tax cut for the big end of town. That is their immovable priority; that is what they are determined to have encapsulated in this budget as reflecting their values and their priorities. I would suggest that that is not shared by the vast majority of the Australian population, particularly when you consider that, within that $80 billion, is $17 billion that will go to the big banks, who have hardly covered themselves in glory in recent expositions coming out of the royal commission. It's particularly important to note, if you look at that $17 billion that the big banks will get as a tax cut under the priorities of the government, that that's exactly enough to put back on the table the $17 billion that the government have cut from our schools.
So here you have a contrast between those of us on this side of the House, who believe in investing in the things that make us a fairer, more dynamic country for the future that includes an opportunity for our children to be part of that story, and those on the other side of the House, whose priorities seem to be that big banks, who have been exposed as having not exactly exemplary behaviour and who are also, I have to say, making record profits, desperately need $17 billion in tax cuts, but our kids in our schools who actually need, as my colleague the member for Whitlam has outlined to this House, the investment in their schools, because they're working away in demandable classrooms across my region—they need investment in literacy and numeracy programs and work to be done in programs that ensure that young people in high school are well positioned for TAFE and university study when they leave their school.
All the programs that I've seen across my electorate and I know were happening across electorates around the country were built on the back of the original Gonski agreement, which was needs based and sector-blind funding. This government has rolled up a shonky version of that which is not needs based and sector blind and which cuts $17 billion from schools across the nation, and they have tried to claim that they are actually doing the right thing by kids in our schools. I don't think parents of those children, their families, their carers, the communities they live in or the teachers who spend so much time and energy working to make sure they position them well will agree that that is a reasonable priority for a government to have. And certainly I know that in my electorate many people would share that concern.
There are so many issues in this budget that I want to cover, and I'll take the opportunity to cover them in a number of contributions to the chamber, but, like many of my colleagues, I'm very excited to hear my new colleague's first speech, so I'm only going to take a few minutes to—
Ms Kearney interjecting—
Ms BIRD: Please don't apologise; I'm absolutely thrilled to have this dilemma. So I just want to make a few points about what my concerns are in particular. One I've already spoken to the House about is the pea-and-thimble trick that's been played in the aged-care sector. Indeed, I've had many locals in tears on the phone to me about access to home-care package places. There are 105,000 people across the country waiting for a home care package. We got 14,000 in the budget. That's not even going to keep up with increasing demand. That's not even going to manage the demand that grew in the six months since they last tried to do something to address this problem. Those families are under great stress and waiting up to 12 months. Somebody who's been assessed as needing support in their home is waiting 12 months. What does the government think the families are doing in the meantime? This is an enormous pressure and this is a particularly cruel trick—not to mention the fact that, as our shadow minister has highlighted, they also didn't actually put extra money in; they funded that by taking money out of residential aged care, which is also under a lot of pressure.
The second area I'm really angry about is TAFE. I'm very disappointed that the Prime Minister not only made an incorrect claim about the level of debt under the Labor government when they took control but also failed to engage and talk about TAFE. I think the government's record on vocational education, on skills, on providing apprenticeships and on filling the skills shortage which should be addressed by training our own people is that they have been cutting and cutting away at the heart of vocational education every single budget and midyear economic statement. Not a single one has passed where they have missed the opportunity to make another cut, and again and again they tout their Skilling Australia Fund, which they can't actually show has delivered anything in terms of apprentices. There is so much that's wrong. There's so much that goes to the heart of the priority for a government that is completely out of whack with where the community is, what their needs are and what we should be doing as a nation.
This budget, as I said at the beginning, puts their priorities the up in headlights, and I'll tell you what: if they were my priorities over my head, I would be ducking for cover, and I think many of those opposite should be doing the same. You can't prioritise $80 billion to big business with $17 billion to the banks while cutting away at the heart of school, TAFE and university, making sure we won't have the investments that we need. I'll continue to fight, as I know all of my colleagues on this side will, against what are very unfair and poor budget decisions by this government.
Debate adjourned.
BUSINESS
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Defence Personnel, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC and Deputy Leader of the House) (16:00): by leave—I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Batman making a statement immediately and that the Member speak without limitation of time.
Question agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Andrews ): Before I call the honourable member for Batman, I remind honourable members that this is her first speech. I therefore ask that the usual courtesies be extended to her. I call the honourable member for Batman.
Ms Kearney (Batman) (16:01): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the House for the opportunity to make this speech. I believe it's respectful and appropriate to begin with acknowledgment of Australia's first peoples. Today I pay my respects to the Ngunawal and Ngambri peoples, the traditional owners of the land on which we meet. I pay my respects to their elders, past, present and emerging, as well as all Indigenous Australians in this room and beyond. My seat of Batman is on the lands of the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin nation, a proud people who have survived all challenges over the decades and prospered.
Batman is a vibrant inner-city electorate with an electric arts and music culture and a tradition of community activism. The by-election that elected me was fought between competing progressive campaigns. This says much about the unique values of our beloved Melbourne borough. I acknowledge that genuine love of Batman's diversity and engagement motivated the campaign of my opponent, Alex Bhathal, as much as it did mine. I would like to thank everyone who worked on and supported me during the election and especially Bill Shorten for his leadership, his personal announcement and support.
The Aboriginal community has always been at the heart of Batman's identity. It is the home of the Aboriginal Advancement League, the mighty All Stars football team and the Aboriginal voice Radio 3KND—that's Radio Kool n Deadly—just to name a few. But my seat is named after John Batman. He was a mercenary in a private army who, in concert with the British military, spent the 1820s and early 1830s tracking and hunting the Indigenous people of Tasmania. This history is not disputed. The man himself wrote of shooting dead two Indigenous Tasmanians who were wounded and captured in a raid because they wouldn't walk at his required pace. His colonial contemporary the artist John Glover described Batman as 'a rogue, thief, cheat and liar, a murderer of blacks and the vilest man I have ever known'. I mention this history because I stand side-by-side with the thousands of people of my electorate who would prefer instead to acknowledge Simon Wonga, the Wurundjeri leader of the 1850s. I mention this because in this parliament, bestowed as we are with the great and rare privilege of serving all Australian people, we can never forget the brutality, the cruelty and the disposition of this land's First Nations. I also commit myself to the implementation of the Uluru statement and a First Nations voice within this parliament.
Today is my first speech in this House. But my actual first speech was to my dad's 'dinnertime parliament', where he was always the Speaker and each of us nine Kearney kids—yes, nine—was cast in a parliamentary role. Mick Kearney was a publican, like his own mum before him. She was a working widowed mother who, in her own way, was a beacon for what women can do if they get an opportunity. Nanna and my own mum, Nance, sowed the seeds for my own feminism. I am so proud to be standing here today in parliament, where women are 48 per cent of the Labor caucus. Nance ran the kitchen of our pub, the Lord Raglan. She was a tireless worker, community organiser and mother. The rowdy debates of those dinnertime parliaments were very good practice for a pub that was full of politicians and priests, footballers and fighters, academics and alcoholics. It was the favourite drinking place of the mighty Richmond Tigers. It was busy, crowded and loud.
Catholicism certainly informed my parents' view of the world, but it was the community they created in that pub that formed mine. Mum and Dad had an extraordinary sense of civics and were generous to a fault—from organising haircuts and meals for the bar flies whose only family was the Lord Raglan to helping out the parish school in Hoddle Street, providing a helping hand for local people and even helping their business competitors in other pubs when they needed it. When there were hotel strikes, my dad still fed his staff and their families every night.
It was that large extended family of pub life and the working class in the suburbs where I grew up that nourished and inspired in me the most important value in my life—as a mum, as a nurse and as a trade unionist. It is the value I hope will define my contribution to this parliament. It is the value of solidarity. Solidarity is the expression of our shared humanity. It is the importance of not merely reaching out but standing beside. Solidarity is not individual charity but collective empowerment. Solidarity does not subsidise; it does not patronise. It is the fundamental recognition that the greatest human dignity is the experience of opportunity and equality.
And not only did the Kearneys have a family parliament, we also had a family trade union. It was called the 'Kearney family union'. All nine kids were members. We paid dues and we made demands on the bosses—that is, mum and dad. We even went on strike once, when mum wanted to get the cat spayed. This led to a sit-in in the kitchen. A strike breaker appeared, my mum, with a broom, and we were forcibly dispersed. We didn't win that one—and neither did the cat! But we were happy with the fight we put up, and dad thought we were just wonderful. My dad died at the age of 54, from a rare pituitary cancer, in 1984. I was 21.
It was in that year that I began my nursing career. Nursing demands immediate solidarity with people in their hours of greatest need. Nursing is also about teamwork and collaboration across the health professions. It obliges hard, exhausting physical and emotional labour. Yet no-one had a more humble appreciation of its rewards of community and generosity than I did when I found myself pregnant with twins in the middle of my training. With the support of the Mercy Hospital and my family I was back at work to finish my training when the twins were only seven weeks old. I went on to have another two wonderful children, and I worked full-time shiftwork all their young lives.
I could not have done that without my mum and my village—that is, my sisters and brothers. Two of my wonderful sisters are here today, as are many members of my lovely big family. I know that the others are watching. To them, I say thank you. And those beautiful twins, Bridget and Alex, are in the gallery today, together with Ryan, my son, and their partners Ash, Justin and Marcella. My youngest, Elizabeth, and her partner are overseas. I have an extended family now, and they are all here as well—my step family Lil, her partner Davey and Ros. My stepdaughter, Maeve, and her partner live overseas. I want to make a very special mention of my beautiful granddaughter, Isla. May there be many more Islas—children!—to light up our lives. I also acknowledge my loving Canberra and Sydney families, some of whom are with me today. I love you all very much.
I learned directly from my experience about the needs of working mums and the crucial need for paid parental leave because I didn't have it. Raising children should not be a struggle for economic survival. Everyone deserves the financial security to bond with their babies. Everyone deserves access to quality child care. When my fourth child, Elizabeth, was born, my husband was a chef working split shifts. I worked full-time night shift at the Austin Hospital. Our lives were a tag team wrestle to feed and care for our family, and it nearly destroyed us both. Be aware: I will take on anyone in this room who has a crack at the federal Paid Parental Leave scheme and paid parental leave entitlements in enterprise agreements. Every primary carer deserves the very best our nation can provide.
I worked at the Austin Hospital while completing a degree in education at La Trobe University, a world-class university that I'm proud to say is in the seat of Batman. I progressed to become head of clinical nursing education at Austin Health. What I taught is what I learned. Nursing is about listening—listening to patients, listening to colleagues, listening to difference and accommodating it. At Austin, I learned how quality vocational education and training can complement and enhance the work of service providers, even as it trains its students.
One of my most rewarding roles at the ACTU was to sit on the board of Skills Australia. You can never invest enough in education, and it makes me so proud to represent an Australian Labor Party that will restore the full Gonski funding model when it wins government, as well as opening the doors to a re-established, properly funded and accessible TAFE system. It also makes me proud to represent the party of Medicare, one that defends with ferocity a quality universal healthcare system.
It was in 1993 that I began my union journey as a rep for the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, during the struggle it was to overcome the savage staffing cuts of the Kennett government. Chronic understaffing resulted from cuts to nurse numbers, and the workloads were unimaginable. The fight lasted years, not just to protect jobs and improve conditions but to defend standards for the quality of care. John Cummins is a legend of the Victorian union movement. He would always finish a speech with, 'Dare to struggle, dare to win.' And he'd say, 'If you don't fight,' and the workers' loud response would always be, 'You lose.' We nurses heeded that lesson, and we demanded nurse-to-patient ratios. We took direct industrial action, and it was really, really hard, but we fought until we won. I'm proud to be part of a union movement that fights not only for its members' benefits but for the benefit of the whole community.
I was also at the Austin when Jeff Kennett tried to privatise it, which would have been a disaster. Australians are right to distrust privatisation. It rarely delivers benefits to everyday people. We won that battle, and the Austin was saved with the election of the Bracks Labor government. In that campaign, I worked with the wonderful Jenny Macklin, the member for Jagajaga, who I'm excited to join as a colleague today. I became honorary president of the Victorian branch of the ANMF, and then honorary federal president, while continuing to work full time as a nurse. I take this opportunity to thank my comrades both at the Austin and in the ANMF for the encouragement and support that have led me here, especially the wonderful Belinda Morrison, Lisa Fitzpatrick, Mark Petty, Jen Hancock, Jill Iliffe and Lee Thomas, just to name a few.
In 2003, I was elected assistant federal secretary of my union and started to work heavily on aged-care funding and policy. While some enterprises in aged care are caring providers that struggle to stay afloat, too many are simply investors who cut costs and services to maintain profit. When 80 per cent of your industry income comes from the federal government coffers, your company should not be listed on the stock exchange. It should not be an option to keep your books a secret. Staffing and skill mix is at a crisis point in private aged care, and it must be fixed. We must show solidarity for the needs of our ageing population, because how we treat our elderly says everything about our values as a nation.
My experience of aged care and other privatised services has disabused me of any faith in trickle-down economics. Nowhere on earth has diverting national wealth to the richest resulted in gains for ordinary workers, let alone those who are vulnerable or poor.
Our own history demonstrates that, when you provide an unemployed person with a Newstart increase or a low-income family a tax cut or a wage rise, they spend every dollar of it. I learned from my publican parents what it means to an enterprising small business to see consumer spending increase. It is what the Rudd government did to save Australia from going into recession, even depression: pump money into the economy for the benefit of those who will spend it quickly.
Australia's relatively high minimum wage has been the bedrock of our economy and stopped us going into recession more than once. Let me acknowledge Justice HB Higgins, who established Australia as the nation with the first living wage in the world when he delivered the Harvester judgment in 1907. He said wages should be sufficient for a human being to live in a civilised world, regardless of an employer's capacity to pay. His judgement spoke to a fair go and a more equitable society. Of course, it took decades for the same consideration of workplace equality to apply to Indigenous Australians or to women or even to our LGBTIQ community, who have all fought their own battles within the great movement of working people.
Poor old HV McKay, the owner of Sunshine Harvester, never got over the judgement against him. He was still railing against the setting of fair wages 15 years later, insisting that pay should be 'a minimum wage for the minimum man, and a maximum wage for the maximum man'. That was the ideological battle in 1907 and 1922. It is still the battle today.
For the last decade, corporate profits have been steadily increasing to an all-time high, while the share of wages is at a record low. Workers work longer and harder in less-secure, more fragmented jobs. This is the real economy that working Australians live in, not the fantasy world that neoliberals would have us imagine. Australians have BS detectors taller than the telescope at Parkes. They can see the unemployed in our suburbs and towns. They know their wages haven't risen in real terms. They know that enterprise bargaining is one sided. They know that there are fewer apprenticeships for their kids, that TAFE hasn't had the funding to provide opportunities and that casual jobs can stay casual jobs forever. They know that gig economy jobs are more prevalent and that permanent workers have to take pay cuts or become independent contractors in the very same place they used to be an employee. Penalty rates have been cut, and wage theft is rampant.
I congratulate the fearless Sally McManus, the ACTU and state Labor councils for leading the campaigns to deliver fairness on the job and workplace rights. Unions fight for better minimum standards and a new living wage, even for those who are not members of unions.
Labor's commitment is to change workplace relations laws to make them fairer for workers. Labor will change the rules. I do not believe it serves working people or Australia to give handouts of $80 billion in corporate tax cuts to the big end of town, not least of all $17 billion in tax cuts to the big banks, whose combined after-tax profit was over $31 billion last year. Last year, employment did not jump in financial services, and wages didn't shoot up either—not even a trickle.
Eighty billion dollars! Budget items this size should be for nation-building infrastructure, for job creating, for revitalising depressed communities and for modernising services. Eighty billion dollars can build skills, support innovative projects and target and fund growth strategies for high-wage, high-skill industries, like niche manufacturing, science and technology, logistics, education, health and social services. There's also the need for new jobs as we transition industries to meet the new reality of climate change, and it could also better be spent ensuring that we live up to international obligations.
That brings me to the issue of asylum seekers, a passionate and emotional issue for the voters in Batman's community. I think proudly of the great achievements of both sides of this House, of Malcolm Fraser and Bob Hawke, who with bipartisan support provided sanctuary to those fleeing the consequences of war in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and later from the events of Tiananmen Square.
I cannot comprehend how a nation that provided a safe home to so many in the wake of World War II, including our large Jewish community of Holocaust survivors, allowed the Tampa and the children overboard scandal to evolve into the shameful policy of indefinite detention on Manus and Nauru. Racist dog whistling has demonised and vilified a community that has everything to give Australia. And the sacrifice of this human potential has been made solely for political gain.
The facts remain the facts: the overwhelming majority of asylum seekers are from places of conflict and the overwhelming majority have been assessed as refugees under the international convention to which Australia is a signatory. We are a rich country. We can afford to take more refugees. However, I doubt we can afford the ongoing cost to our national psyche of subjecting men, women, and children to years of punitive indefinite detention. We must, as a priority, move the asylum seekers off Manus and Nauru to permanent resettlement and ensure that indefinite detention never happens again.
My commitment in this House is to the cause of humane refugee policy. It is to foreign policy and foreign aid that proactively supports people as they flee conflict. It is to assessment, not punishment, within a fair time limit, and as part of regional agreements for humane resettlement. It is to collaboration with the UNHCR and more funds for its operation, as well as a greater permanent intake of refugees with the expansion of our humanitarian program. It is to ensuring all refugees have access to social services and income support. Offering sanctuary to refugees does not need to compromise or undercut other paths to citizenship that Australia offers to migrants, like family reunions. My own community in Batman is living evidence that we have actually done this before.
Just as migration benefits us, so too does meaningful engagement with our neighbours in the Pacific and Asian countries. In my role as ACTU president, I was on the board of APHEDA, an international aid agency led in true solidarity by the wonderful Kate Lee. APHEDA runs small-scale aid projects that empower communities. But APHEDA and the many other aid agencies need more resources to expand their work. The United Nations and the OECD international benchmark for official development assistance is 0.7 per cent of gross national income, and our current aid budget is 0.27 per cent. Shamefully, we're 16th on the OECD list of contributors.
Labor has committed to increasing our aid contributions. Lifting the living standards and opportunities of our neighbours is in our national interest, especially as we grapple with the global climate emergency. Sea level rises aren't some theory or a future problem for our Pacific neighbours. Our practical solidarity both assists them and prepares us for the changes to come. Strategically, it's a bit rich to voice concerns about the growing influence of China and Asia in the Pacific, when many of those countries see Australian leadership dwindling. Nor is it good enough for Australia to act as someone else's police force in the region or globally. Labor's recognition of the climate emergency is the framework for our policy deliberations from environmental protection to job creation. I was proud to promote Labor's commitment to climate action as both ambitious and achievable during the by-election. Labor has clear goals for reduced carbon emissions, for renewal energy, for decarbonising our economy. We comprehend the reality of climate change as it impacts on refugee movements, health and land use. We are committed to our responsibilities under the Paris agreement. As we urgently shift away from thermal coal-fired power, we need to protect our World Heritage areas, including the Great Barrier Reef. In the task of transitioning energy generation to renewable sources, we're committed to a just transition for workers and communities that rely on coal-based industries. We will never abandon any community. We will bring them with us, into the creation of new, clean industries, jobs and opportunities. This is what the Andrews government in Victoria has done to support the closure of Hazelwood Power Station through a just transition approach—an initiative that I was proud to support as ACTU president.
I am here, of course, to ultimately fulfil the obligation of the labour movement and the Labor Party: to make people's lives better. I will not be the last on this side of the House to quote Ben Chifley's speech to the 1949 New South Wales Labor Party conference. Chifley said:
I try to think of the Labour movement, not as putting an extra sixpence into somebody's pocket, or making somebody Prime Minister or Premier, but as a movement bringing something better to the people, better standards of living, greater happiness to the mass of the people. We have a great objective—the light on the hill—which we aim to reach by working for the betterment of mankind not only here but anywhere we may give a helping hand.
This is the solidarity to which Labor commits. Of course, that light on the hill keeps moving. The moment you think you reached the ultimate goal of justice and fairness, it seems just that much further away. But, in making the journey, in challenging ourselves to reach out for that light, we change ourselves, and we change the course of society.
I am both humbled and excited to be continuing my journey in public life in this parliament as a member of the Australian Labor Party. I am excited to join a most excellent cohort of comrades representing Labor in this House and the Senate. This journey, as I have said, has been supported by so many, but none more than my long-suffering, hardworking, wonderful partner, Leigh Hubbard, whose wisdom and love keeps me going. In honour of the many people I've referred to in this speech, but especially the thousands of union members I have had the privilege to serve, I recommit myself to making solidarity the cornerstone of everything I do in this place. I hope my small contribution ultimately adds to the brightness of that magnificent light on the hill, as we collectively strive to achieve that great objective of the mighty labour movement. May that light be a beacon for us all.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2018-2019
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019
Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2017-2018
Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2017-2018
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (16:29): It gives me great pleasure this evening to rise to speak on the appropriation bills for 2018 and 2019. I'd like to start off on the subject of university funding and the recent case of Professor—or now Doctor—Ridd. I'll start with the comments about what John Stuart Mill wrote back in the year 1869 in On Liberty:
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
It is that belief that is the reason why we fund our universities with taxpayers' dollars so that they are the bastions of free speech, places where free and open debate are welcome. They become places where dissenting opinions are welcomed, not frowned upon, where alternative views and theories are listened to and tested. The idea of gagging scientists, of silencing academics criticising their university, of having intolerance for different views, where dissent must be crushed rather than encouraged, is a perversion of those words of Mill. It is a perversion of the legacy of the Enlightenment. That is how totalitarian regimes develop and work.
And yet we have the treatment by James Cook University of Professor Ridd. First they tried to punish the professor for simply daring to question the sacred peer review. And these are the words they objected to which Professor Ridd said:
… we can no longer trust the scientific organisations like the Australian Institute of Marine Science, even things like the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies – a lot of this is stuff is coming out, the science is coming out not properly checked, tested or replicated and this is a great shame because we really need to be able to trust our scientific institutions and the fact is I do not think we can any more …
Professor Ridd is merely voicing an alternative opinion. His opinion should be tested against the facts with different hypotheses tested over and over. That is how the scientific method works. But yet, because of those words, there was not only the campaign to curtail Professor Ridd's academic freedom; James Cook University actually made an order that he should not even discuss their campaign to silence and censor him.
And this has gone to the length of absurdities. He was even told not to contact or speak with his wife about the case. He was told that he could not trivialise, satirise or parody James Cook University, and that is what they've accused him of. They've actually accused him of trivialising, satirising and parodying, because he sent a newspaper article about his case to an old friend—merely copied the article—and wrote the words 'for your amusement'. For that, we have a university trying to censor a professor.
But we know what Professor Ridd's real crime was. His real crime was that he dared to question leftist groupthink ideology—an ideology that has a totalitarian mindset that dissenters must be crushed. So I say to those running James Cook University: 'Your targeting and your seeking to silence Professor Ridd are an affront to everything our universities stand for. They are an affront to the very principles of Western civilisation, to the legacy of enlightenment and to our democracy.' When John Stuart Mill used the word 'evil', he said that the particular evil of silencing the expression of opinion is something that we should avoid. I ask those running James Cook University to look at themselves closely, look at the history of the enlightenment and allow Professor Ridd to continue his work. And, if his work is wrong, prove it with science and evidence.
I'd like to address a few other issues during this debate. Firstly, there is the contrast between the coalition and the Labor Party during the budget speech and budget-in-reply speech. We heard the opposition leader, on the night of the budget-in-reply speech, say that he would commit the Labor Party to copying the South Australian experiment—the failed South Australian experiment of a 50 per cent Renewable Energy Target which was inflicted upon the poor, long-suffering residents of South Australia. They were turned into guinea pigs for that experiment. What did that experiment deliver—the very experiment that the Leader of the Opposition wants to foist upon the entire nation? It gave that state not only the highest electricity prices in the nation but, unbelievably, it gave that state the highest electricity prices in the world. That is what the Leader of the Opposition wants to copy and inflict upon the nation.
The Labor Party talk about the greater happiness for the mass of the people. That 50 per cent Renewable Energy Target resulted in South Australia having the highest rate of disconnections in the nation. In fact, they went to a 130 per cent increase in disconnections. In 2009-10 in the state of South Australia, there were 4,748 disconnections—people having electricity turned off. Fast forward: once they'd implemented the wonderful policy of a 50 per cent Renewable Energy Target, in 2016-17 there were 10,902 households in South Australia that had their electricity disconnected—a 130 per cent increase. That is what the Labor Party want to inflict on all of Australia. How does a family operate if they've had their electricity disconnected? How do their kids do their homework at night? How do they cook their evening meal? How do they keep food fresh in a refrigerator if they have no electricity after it was cut off? And yet the policies of the Australian Labor Party are to introduce and copy the very policies that saw a 130 per cent increase in South Australian households having their electricity cut off.
We have seen from the Australian Energy Regulator what it has done to the average debt. While the average electricity bill debt in Queensland is $650 and in New South Wales it is $850, in the state of South Australia it is $1,200, almost 50 per cent higher. What that means is that residents in South Australia have less money in their pocket to spend on services, at the local shops or at the local cafe. They have less money to buy something extra for their kids or something nice or to save money for a holiday, because they have to put more money aside for electricity. We are talking about a $550 difference between Queensland and South Australia in what they have to pay on their bill, yet this is the policy that the Labor Party want to inflict on all of Australia.
It doesn't stop there. We also have seen the Labor Party commit to upping the Paris targets. They think the Paris targets that we have committed to are not high enough. They want to up it to a 45 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.
So I would ask the members of the Labor Party this. We know what your plans are for electricity. We know how your plans proceed. We know exactly what happens. We have the example of the state of South Australia. But can you tell us: how are you going to get a 45 per cent reduction in emissions in the transport sector? Are you going to put up the price of petrol? Are you going to put up the price of registration? Are you going to take cars from people? Explain to the Australian public how you are going to get a 45 per cent reduction in transport. How are the Labor Party going to get a 45 per cent reduction in emissions in the agricultural sector? What do they have planned for the farmers of this nation if they inflict or force upon them a 45 per cent reduction? What about industry, which uses gas? How are they going to get a 45 per cent reduction there? Quite simply, we'll close the businesses down, put the workers out of work and send the production offshore. Is that the plan that the Australian Labor Party have? What about gas for home heating? How does the Labor Party intend to get a 45 per cent reduction in the emissions from people using gas for their home heating? Do you expect people to sit shivering in the cold so we can achieve some sort of virtue signalling and so you can run around and say, 'Yes, we've achieved our targets?' This is what the Australian people need to know. This is what the Labor Party need to explain about their policies. We know the damage that they are going to cause in the electricity sector, but tell us: what are your policies on transport to get those reductions, what are your policies on agriculture, what are your policies for industry, and what are your policies for gas and heating?
Finally, this is where we see the greatest difference between the coalition and the opposition. We see the difference in speech after speech in this chamber. Members of the Labor Party simply think the size of our economic pie is fixed. They think the wealth that we've created just arrives naturally and it's just a matter of carving it up in a way that they see as fair and equitable. This is a mistake that, as we've seen in nation after nation, has sent countries backwards, because the size of the economy is not fixed. The wealth that we have in this nation depends on the hard work, the entrepreneurial efforts and the risk taking of the Australian citizen.
That's why we think that it is best policy to lower the corporate rate of tax, because we know that we need to have that corporate rate of tax internationally competitive. How long can we continue with a 30 per cent corporate tax rate, stuck at that level since the year 2000, if we see all our international competitors lowering their corporate rate of tax? We see the US bringing it back to 21 per cent. We see the UK bringing it back to 19 per cent. We see Hong Kong and Singapore at 15 and 17 per cent. How can we attract investment if we are going to have a 30 per cent corporate tax rate, plus a top marginal rate of tax of 49 per cent, where 50 per cent of every extra dollar that someone earns goes to the government? These are the destroyers of the incentives that create the wealth in our nation.
There cannot be greater clarity between what the opposition plans for this nation and what the coalition does. We see the plans of the opposition. They will give us uncompetitive energy prices. They'll copy South Australia and give us the highest prices in the world. They'll make transport unaffordable for many Australians. They'll make our corporate rate of tax uncompetitive. If we have those things uncompetitive, how can we in this nation therefore afford to pay the wages that we'd like to see? How can we increase people's wages if more and more of every business's expenses has to go to a higher and higher electricity bill to meet some artificial target so the Labor Party can go around in their electorates and virtue-signal to the Greens to try to get their preferences?
This is the choice that is coming, and it is a stark choice. It is about a coalition government acting responsibly, bringing the budget back to a balance, then to a surplus and then paying down that debt as the coalition government have done and succeeded at before. The alternative is a reckless Labor Party that will spend and spend money we don't have, make our nation uncompetitive and destroy wealth. (Time expired)
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (16:45): It gives me great pleasure to rise on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019. I would have to say that I've been in this place 10 years now and back in the electorate there is the best response to a budget I've ever met. It's been a tough decade for Australian taxpayers and, after the 4½ years since the coalition came to government, at last a surplus is in sight. It's not the member for Lilley's fake promises. It's not the, 'We'll be back in the black by 2012-13,' as promised by the member for Lilley. It's not the 'My commitment to a surplus in 2012-13 was a promise made and it will be honoured,' as the then Prime Minister Julia Gillard said in April 2011. It's not a hundred other quotes announcing the surplus being delivered when the record shows six years of multibillion-dollar deficits under the former Labor government.
It's been hard work since that time, in the 4½ years of the coalition government. Since coming to government, the coalition has applied a steady handbrake on growth to government expenditure. It's not a brick wall that would have stalled the economy, no slashing of jobs and no savage cuts, but gentle pressure across the board that has allowed for growth in government expenditure, has increased services and, most importantly, has promoted growth in the country. I think perhaps the most important news in the budget is that we do return to surplus next year, a year earlier than we predicted. Contrast that to the former government, where the surplus just kept getting postponed and put further and further out. In fact, this government, with a sustained effort, will bring in a surplus 12 months earlier than predicted. This is an enormous turnaround, and we have gotten there by underpromising and overdelivering—always a very good path for governments.
The brightest part of the economy is the jobs growth, with 427,000 in the last 12 months, and one million new jobs since the coalition was elected in 2013. It doesn't happen by accident. One million new jobs means there are one million people that are no longer on new start; one million people that are paying tax and contributing to the wealth of this nation; and one million people that will are renting and building houses and installing a new kitchen in their house, giving jobs to other people.
The budget delivers immediate tax relief for middle-income earners. Within four years, the government will remove the 37-cents-in-the-dollar rate completely. Now, a lot of rubbish has been spoken about the changes the government proposes in taxation. I would love to wax lyrical about that and point out all of those errors, but there is a bill coming up on this matter in the next 24 or 48 hours, and I'll reserve my comments on the changes to the tax rates to that debate.
There is a whole raft of good news. In Grey, without doubt, the big ticket item in infrastructure is the commitment to duplicate the Joy Baluch AM Bridge at Port Augusta. For those of you that don't know—I know, of course, you would, Mr Deputy Speaker Irons—all of the north-south traffic through Central Australia and all of the east-west traffic across the south of Australia passes over this single bridge at Port Augusta. It is the only viable link between the east and west of Port Augusta. Emergency services can be sidelined if traffic is interrupted on the bridge. Yorkeys Crossing, which is the alternative crossing, is around about a 30-kilometre diversion around the northern swampland of the gulf. It is sometimes suspect and sometimes closed because of wet weather. That has been the fail-safe measure here. I point out that all of the emergency services in Port Augusta are located on the east side, and there is a substantial population living on the west side. You can imagine what would happen if the bridge happened to be out of commission when one of those emergencies eventuated.
East and west Port Augusta were first joined in 1927 by the Great Western Bridge, a wooden bridge which still stands but looks more like a jetty than a bridge—a wooden structure. It was superseded in 1972 by the now-named Joy Baluch AM Bridge. That bridge has served us and the nation—I've talked about the crossflow of traffic and freight across the nation—well since then. However, the designs of 1972 are quite different to today's, and that bridge, as part of its features, has a narrow walkway to the side of the road. This walkway is about 1.4 metres wide, and two gophers can't pass each other if they meet on the walkway. The other day, a lady was pushing a pram with twins in it—the side-by-side arrangement, Deputy Speaker Irons; you would be quite familiar with it—across the bridge, and the pedestrian they encountered had to step onto the roadway to go around the pram. It is obviously not a safe arrangement. In fact, schools are now bussing children from one side of the gulf to the other. Parents draw their breath when their children ride across the bridge on the walkway. They are millimetres from 100-tonne-plus road trains. It's an accident waiting to happen.
Up until April last year it all worked okay, until Port Augusta City Council, which now owns the Great Western Bridge, closed the bridge—the old wooden walkway I talked about earlier—which had fallen into a dilapidated state. These things happen; the bridge had to be closed. Of course, the old wooden bridge was where the pedestrians in Port Augusta had been crossing the gulf since 1972. It forced all of the foot traffic onto the Joy Baluch AM Bridge—and I've described that walkway. I raised this issue with the former South Australian government, along with the then minister for transport, the member for Gippsland. I asked for an engineering report with suggestions on how to install a safe, separated walkway on the bridge. In the almost 12 months through to the state election it never came. I could not believe it. Despite my repeated calls for the state minister to come up with an engineering report on what was the state's bridge it never came. I had great concern for safety in the city.
So the caravan's moved on. In the lead up to the election, I met with a number of business groups. I met with SACOME, the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy. Their No. 1 priority was the duplication of the bridge across the gulf. I was very pleased indeed when that wish, if you like, was granted in the budget. $160 million committed from the federal government to partner the Marshall state government on an 80-20 basis. Let me say, what a pleasure it is to work with a government that is open for building infrastructure in rural and regional areas. We were able to strike a deal quite quickly. It's a huge investment. It will be quite disruptive, and I ask residents to be somewhat patient, because we know that none of the work has been done on this bridge at this stage. We will need such things as native title clearance, EPA clearance and coastal protection clearance. We don't know exactly where the bridge is going to go and whose houses and businesses might have to be removed as a result of building that bridge. We have no designs at this stage. We are starting from scratch and it will take a little bit of time.
There has been a bit of sniping about the projections in the budget for the expenditure. There's $60 million in the forward estimates. The extra $100 million lies in the projections. Let me say, if we are running in front of the time frame that Treasury predicts to build this bridge, we will find the money. You will not find that this government is holding up the construction of that bridge. I'll be putting pressure on at every level to make sure that we get on with this job, because this is very important. If we are seen to be dragging our heels and something bad happens—I don't even want to contemplate that. I am just so thankful that we've got this commitment from the federal government and that we have this commitment from the Marshall state government.
So that's the big ticket item in Grey. But, let me tell you, there are a lot of extra things in the budget, many of which I and others like me have been lobbying for. In aged care we have an extra 14,000 home-care packages to go along with the 6,000 that the minister allocated in the MYEFO last December. That is 20,000 packages. We know this is still not going to be enough to fill the backlog, but it is an enormous commitment. The Minister for Aged Care has taken this chamber through a process where he has actually drawn in the numbers, so we now understand what that backlog is. It's an enormous commitment and I thank him very much for it. He's also put aside money to help rural aged-care facilities. They can apply to it for capital grants, and I have quite a number that are looking for any kind of assistance they can get. Delivering aged-care services in the country is more expensive than delivering them in the city, and we need to recognise that. These smaller facilities, which are suboptimal in size, are so important to their local communities. As much as is humanly possible, people need to be able to age within their own communities where they are supported by friends and family.
Also in the budget—and I think this is very important—there is an increase, from $250 to $300 per fortnight, in the amount that age pensioners can earn before it will affect their pension. They will applaud this. There is an extension of the $20,000 automatic tax write-off for small businesses—for all businesses, in fact. This has been a very popular measure in the last few years, and I applaud the fact we've been able to extend that. We've raised the threshold for qualification for independent youth allowance. It does raise my eyebrow, I must say, that the independent youth allowance is dependent on what your parents earn. It seems to me that 'independent' would indicate that the student is independent. But we have lifted that threshold where they can apply from $150,000 to $160,000, with an extra $10,000 for each student that is under that parent's responsibility at that stage.
From 1 July there's a new package for parents needing childcare. It will make a considerable difference to working parents. There's a further $200 million on offer for another round of the Building Better Regions Fund. We've had quite a number of very good projects funded throughout the Grey electorate under this program. We always have lots of applications, and I'm looking forward to trying to partner again with those people putting applications into the next round. We have a commitment to a fourth round of the Stronger Communities Program. Once again, this is at the lower end, the grassroots, of community, where we see grants of from $2,000 to maybe $20,000. These are grants that make an enormous difference to voluntary organisations.
The budget committed an extra $550 million for the Stronger Rural Health Strategy. Many times I've spoken in this chamber about the challenges of finding GPs to work in rural Australia, and the suggestions that I've brought forward include something that has not been picked up yet: postcode-specific Medicare provider numbers. This is a constant issue for those of us who live in the country. In fact, at this stage, the electorate of Grey is 29 GPs short. That is up from a figure of around 19 eighteen months ago, and I'm very concerned. That's why I'm pleased the government is making a considerable commitment in this area, including upskilling existing doctors so they feel better prepared to deal with whatever the practice may throw at them, and increasing the number of placements for undergraduates to experience something of rural living while they're going through their training program.
Something that many schools around my electorate will be celebrating is a commitment to permanent funding of the School Chaplaincy Program. This is a program that was created by the coalition. It was altered somewhat during the Labor years, but we brought it back in its original form. It is extremely popular. The schools just lap it up, I have to say. When we're talking about issues in this place such as mental health and our young people needing assistance, a quiet hand and someone to go to to talk about issues, the School Chaplaincy Program is really delivering.
So, right across the board, I welcome the budget. As I said, it's probably the one that has gone down the best in the entire time that I've spent in this chamber.
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (17:00): I rise today to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019 and the related bills. As has been said, this side of the House will be supporting supply. It is for this reason that I support these bills, which will appropriate about $7.9 billion for the remainder of this financial year and then around $108 billion for the 2018-19 financial year.
But my support for supply is in no way support for the unfair Liberal budget we have just witnessed. This budget is just like every other Liberal budget in that it fail the fairness test. While this is not unexpected, it is always disappointing. It is disappointing to see a federal government so committed to giving its friends at the top end of town an $80 billion tax handout but happy to cast aside the needs—yes, the needs—of children, the elderly and the sick. Instead of investing in schools, TAFEs and universities, instead of investing in hospitals and Medicare and instead of investing in the welfare of pensioners, this government is instead taking care of big business. It is taking care of the multinationals and it is taking care of the banks. I know the banks are having a bit of a rough trot at the moment, courtesy of the banking royal commission, but surely those opposite must question the need to make them feel better at the cost of $17 billion. A cynic in the room could even be forgiven for thinking that the $17 billion was by way of a mock apology for a banking royal commission that this government clearly did not want to have. This government stonewalled the banking royal commission for more than 600 days. It did everything it could to prevent the shocking and unacceptable banking practices that are now front-page news from being exposed. But, thanks to Labor's long and hard fight for the banking royal commission, the government capitulated and we are gaining an insight into how customers have been disgracefully treated by the banks.
This government ought to think long and hard about rewarding this behaviour, especially when we consider what is not being rewarded in this budget. The more than generous $80 billion in tax handouts to the top end of town have to be paid for from somewhere. Let's think about this for a moment. The government is giving $17 billion to the big banks and taking $17 billion out of education. So, on the one hand, it is giving $17 billion to the banks and, on the other hand, it is taking $17 billion out of the education portfolio. That truly is unbelievable. Unfortunately for the mums and dads worried about their children's education, unfortunately for those in the community who are sick or have ill family members and unfortunately for those pensioners who rely on the energy supplement to get by, that handout is being paid for with savage cuts to education, health and the pension. This government has plans to persist with its $715 million in cruel cuts to hospitals during the next two years, with further cuts locked in for the five years from 2020. Those opposite are forcing up the out-of-pocket costs on patients needing to see specialists by keeping the Medicare freeze in place. Do they not understand how this is hurting struggling households having difficulty with living pressures and how it is hurting those struggling with low and stagnant wage growth and others struggling with cuts to their wages of up to $77 per week, thanks to this government's shameful stance on penalty rates?
Difficult choices are being made around this country when it comes to things such as private health cover. When you are paying more and more for less and less, you'll find that people start ditching their private health insurance because they can no longer afford the annual price hikes and they can no longer see the point of private health insurance. So how about the government looks to address this affordability crisis, instead of rewarding those with at least an $80 billion windfall? The same applies to education. Cutting $17 billion from schools, as I said before, and cutting another $270 million from TAFE—where is the sense in this? To my mind, and to the minds of most Australians, the last thing we should be doing is stripping money from education. Rather, we should be investing in it and doing all that we can to encourage further investment in education.
I do not know how this government thinks this country can continue to ensure we will have a supply of skilled and trained workers when it continues to strip funding from vocational education. The whopping $3 billion ripped from vocational education has not been enough for Prime Minister Turnbull's government. This budget includes a further $270 million worth of cuts to TAFE and apprentices. I suggest the education minister take time to actually learn what TAFE is all about and how important it is in training Australians for all types of work.
Seriously, have we ever had to withstand a worse education minister in this country? Has there ever been an education minister more out of touch with universities, with TAFEs and even with the early childhood sector? The technical and further education system deserves more than the elitist and dismissive attitude of Senator Birmingham, and apprentices and those in technical education deserve more than the stripping of essential funding by the senator. It's time someone in the government woke up the education minister, gave him a good old shove and stopped him bagging a reputable institution that delivers much more than energy healing and basket weaving. The education minister showed his ignorance of the university sector when he proclaimed that they operate on rivers of gold. Anyone who has anything to do with the sector, anyone who has worked in it and anyone with a skerrick of interest in universities knows that this is only a misguided and dangerous fantasy. He showed his disdain for and ignorance of the TAFE sector as he casually dismissed the efforts of all those TAFE students currently studying. In case those opposite cannot assist the minister for education in learning what goes on in a TAFE, I'm going to take you through some of the many courses and examples of trades training delivered at South Metropolitan TAFE, which includes the Rockingham campus in my electorate of Brand: aero skills and skills in avionics, aviation—a commercial pilot licence—marine craft construction, maritime operations and marine engineering, engineering—industrial electrician, accounting, project management and nursing. The list goes on but, alas, there is no basket weaving or energy healing on offer at the moment.
I think the education minister doesn't really like the portfolio he's been given. He has shown his ignorance of the university sector, his disdain for TAFE and vocational education, and his utter ignorance of and inability to learn anything about early childhood learning and its funding. Given the magnitude of the cuts the minister for education is applying to the sector, it makes me suspect that Minister Birmingham is perhaps auditioning for another role in this government. Perhaps he's auditioning for the Finance portfolio, but of course we know it's going to take quite a few levers to get Senator Cormann out of that role.
While Minister Birmingham has cut into schools and TAFE, that doesn't complete the education trifecta. Of course, universities and higher education are the other place where this government has delivered cuts in very real and dangerous spades. I worked in the university sector before entering this place, so I speak from experience when I talk about how damaging this government's attack on the sector is and the dreadful impact it is having on our institutions, the staff and, most importantly, the students.
The ruthless cuts of this government started before my being elected to this place in 2016. The 2014 budget was just the start of a long and sustained attack on Australians' right, regardless of their bank balance, to a university degree. It's a right based on ability, not bankability. There is still $2.2 billion in university cuts entrenched in the Treasurer's latest budget, despite the voices of many in the field telling how bad it is.
I have met with vice-chancellors and senior staff from three universities in Western Australia: UWA, which stands to lose $38 million, Curtin University, which stands to lose $86 million, and Murdoch University, which stands to lose $35 million from this budget. When the cuts to Edith Cowan University, which are $49 million, are added, this creates a cut of over $208 million from universities for my state of Western Australia. This is utterly unacceptable.
I've said this before: I can only imagine that it's the intention of this government, by putting universities in a funding vice, to push institutions toward instituting higher fees. What we are seeing is the opportunity for a better future that a higher education affords being taken away from those who cannot afford it. I have been to many open days and other university events, and I have talked to students and staff about how these cuts will impact them, and their views aren't positive. Their reality isn't positive. Instead of helping young people to start out on what should be one of the most exciting times as a young adult, we are saddling them with doubt, stress and debt.
I'd like to commend the work of the National Union of Students on their Build a Better Budget campaign. They are campaigning hard for a better deal for university students around the country. Those opposite would do well to listen to student-led grassroots campaigns like this one, and they would do well to work for better standards for students and to increase federal funding for universities around the country. Labor has committed to reversing the savage cuts to the university sector and to moving towards having 200,000 extra Australians attending university, effectively abolishing the Prime Minister's unfair cap on university student places. Labor has always been the only party serious about improving education standards and opportunities in Australia and will continue to be the only party to ensure that those commitments are met. It might seem like a cliched expression, but stating the obvious is somehow helpful in this place: young people are the future. We should be adequately funding, growing and adapting our education institutions to ensure that young Australians who aspire to reach a little higher through the Australian education system have the opportunity to do so. Increased cost of higher education will be unmanageable for many.
People are doing it tough when it comes to managing their household budget—faced with the rising cost of living and housing affordability pressures and when faced with underemployment and stagnated wage growth. Some of the most vulnerable people who are dealing with these pressures are doing it on a pension, a fixed income with no wriggle room. How is this government is taking care of them? The answer is that it's not. What it's doing instead is slashing the energy supplement from their pension and leaving a $14 hole in a pensioner's fortnightly pay. For many that will be a very difficult hole to fill. Fourteen dollars might not seem like much to those opposite, but it is when you're on a fixed income, when your pension is carefully budgeted to pay for essentials such as food, rent, heating and power. This burden should not be put on older people in our community. It will cause immeasurable stress on our elderly and vulnerable, and I for one take no comfort in their sacrifice to the big end of town's $80 billion tax handout.
But the vulnerable, regardless of where they are, are an easy target for some. This budget has extended the freeze in foreign aid funding, which is effectively another cut in funding, this time of $140 million, to some of the most desperate and poorest people in the world. Australia's overseas development assistance is at a record low, and the foreign minister has presided over more than $11 billion in cuts to date. The whole point of foreign aid, according to DFAT, is to promote our national interests by promoting prosperity, reducing poverty and enhancing stability, with a focus on our neighbourhood, but here we are as a country slashing our aid budget and undermining our role and responsibilities as a leader in our region.
In this budget, the government has given billions of dollars to those who do not need it, and those who need support most are paying for it. There is another way, a fairer way, of delivering a budget that Australia needs and deserves. Labor's approach to the budget is fair and responsible. It does not squeeze the most vulnerable to benefit the most well off. It is considered when it comes to budget repair. We'll deliver better funding for public hospitals, with every single public hospital benefitting from Labor's investment. Labor's $2.8 billion investment in hospitals will reverse the cruel cuts employed by this government. It will fund more beds, more services and more staff. Our plan will also deliver lower taxes for 10 million working Australians, and we'll also restore Sunday penalty rates. In fact, Labor's plan will see workers who earn up to $125,000 a year paying less tax than they would otherwise pay under this government, with more than four million people in this country getting a tax cut.
As I said before, Labor will abolish Prime Minister Turnbull's cap on university places, which denies disadvantaged students access to university. We introduced the demand driven funding system, a system which enabled more people to go to uni and that allowed an additional 190,000 students to get a place at one of the higher education institutions around this country. This is important when you consider that research tells us that by 2020—in only two years—two out of every three jobs created in this country will require a diploma or other higher education qualification. Investing in higher education place and young people's access to it is a smart thing to do and the right thing to do. We will also abolish upfront fees for 100,000 TAFE places in courses where Australia needs the skills. I would be more than happy to show Senator Birmingham, the supposed Minister for Education, around my local TAFE and show him firsthand what a vital institution it is and for him to meet with some young people engaged in vocational training. It might help open his eyes to the real world, where investment in vocational education delivers skilled workers. For that matter, I'd be very pleased to take him around a university as well.
Labor can deliver on our commitments because we put people ahead of big business and the banks and because that $80 billion of tax windfall to the top end of town can be much better used to deliver for more people in our country. We'll be guided by clear fiscal principles that repair the budget in a fair way. We will not ask the most vulnerable to carry the heaviest burden. Tough calls have been made on tax reform, but they are fair calls: negative gearing, capital gains tax, trusts, and dividend imputation refundability. We will close loopholes to those who need them least. Our plan is fairer and more responsible because we've made the big calls and we've got them right. (Time expired)
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (17:15): It gives me great pleasure to speak about the budget, because the budget is a very important part of governing. Ultimately, the first role of this government is the defence of the Australian people, to ensure that Australians are safe and that provision is made for our welfare. The next is to create an economy that rewards endeavour. You have to reward endeavour, because the government doesn't have any money; the government only has your money. We need to get that clear: we spend your money, and it needs to be spent responsibly. But we also, if we can, should give some back, because an economy has to create endeavour. Those who get out of bed earlier than others—those who take risks—ultimately need to get rewarded for that. If you fail to grasp that, you get to a point where you stifle the money that comes into this place and the country becomes poorer. Ultimately, a country is rich when its citizens are rich. I think that is the difference and the contrast between how we view a budget and how the Australian Labor Party views a budget. In this budget, we must make sure we look after those who can't look after themselves. We have a duty of care to our senior Australians. We have a duty of care to educate the future and to look after our children. We also have a duty of care to be a beacon to other countries in the world, and I will touch on Australian aid in this budget as well.
Let's just run through this: in 2007, the nation had no government debt, and now we have government debt of $349.9 billion. That is partly from the years of the Labor Party in power, but we have also run deficit budgets ourselves, so we need to look very clearly at that. This year the budget will have a deficit of $18.2 billion and next year a deficit of $14.5 billion, but by 2019-20 we will have a surplus budget of $2.2 billion. I need to make it very clear for those who might be listening that a surplus budget does not mean we no longer have debt. A surplus budget simply means that we have spent less money than we have received, and that then affords us the opportunity to start to pay down debt. We have a long way to go. In 2020-21 we will have an $11 billion surplus, and in 2021-22 there is a projected surplus of $16.6 billion. But that is still only chipping away at the debt.
But I think there are some very good things in this budget contained in the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019, and it's about investing in growth and investing in incentives. I want to just touch on the $530 tax rebate for the people who live in my patch. Seventy-three per cent of the people who live in my patch earn under $87,000. The electorate of Mallee is not an electorate made up of people who are very rich. We're not an inner city Sydney or a Brighton or some of those suburbs in Melbourne, but we are very fair and decent people. So we will be quite appreciative of this tax cut.
I noticed that someone put on my Facebook, 'You can keep my $10, and that should go to health and education.' I replied very quickly that I can give you some schools and some hospitals in my patch that would happily take his donation of $530. He didn't reply, and I put that challenge out there. But can I say that that does create incentive, and $530 for those people in that year will be spinning through our local economy. They will spend it on essential things. That's a family trip to the pool. That's a little camping trip on the Murray, a great place. Spinning money through our economy is very important to our country towns. We have over 17,000 small businesses in the electorate of Mallee, and they will benefit from the $20,000 instant tax write-off. There are things that you can deduct instantly to make your business grow. I think that's been very welcome.
One of the things I'm particularly proud of in this budget is addressing health concerns. Unfortunately, we have a shortage of general practitioners in my patch. If you're a general practitioner who has tuned in on the radio, listening to the great debate in parliament, because that's what a good general practitioner should do, can I just say that there are very welcoming people in my patch who would love to have you. Part of this budget is that we have invested $550 million into a stronger rural health strategy. This means that GPs will be able to train in a regional area from start to finish. More than that, there's going to be the opportunity for a graduate who practices in a rural area to have a Medicare provider number, so they will be able to practice. Also, there will be support around graduate positions. What was happening was that people would train in the regions but then have to go to the city for those graduate years, and somehow the attraction of the great lights of the city—whether they fell in love or enjoyed the coffee—meant they didn't come back. Just on that, I might point out that Mildura was the second city in Victoria to get a barista, so if you want good coffee as a GP, you can get it in our part of the world.
There's been some good money put aside for regional development, with round 3 of the Building Better Regions Fund. This is the fund that in our patch has built the Swan Hill saleyards upgrade; the Horsham North Children's Hub; some facilities around recreational lakes, like Tchum Lake, Watchem Lake, Wooroonook Lake; the Mildura runway upgrade; and, recently, the Mallee Accommodation and Support Program facilities, which got $2.4 million, for which I did a sod turning the other day. Having that fund so that councils and communities can work with me to try and tender for it has also been welcome.
I am very pleased to see more money for education in our patch. There are 119 schools in the electorate of Mallee, and every one of those schools gets more. One of the things I've been advocating for, surprisingly, more than anything in the lead-up to the budget, was the school chaplaincy program. Because some of my country schools are reasonably small country schools, they wouldn't have an opportunity to have a school counsellor or wouldn't be able to afford a school counsellor. I was very pleased to see that the National School Chaplaincy Program of $247 million over the forward estimates has been committed. When I started as a member of parliament five years ago I was pulled aside by a young lady, who was 17, and her dad. They said they were in Swan Hill and that there were no mental health support services at all for her when she was going through a difficult time. We now have three headspaces in the electorate of Mallee, in Mildura, Swan Hill and Horsham, combined with the school chaplaincy programs. So they have that initial point of contact within the school network and can be directed to headspace for more clinical support. It makes me very pleased that we are addressing the needs of youth mental health in the great electorate of Mallee.
We have massive infrastructure needs in our patch. One of the great things I've got to say about my electorate is that we are a net contributor to the Australian economy, with $5.3 billion annually of agricultural product being produced—not bad—with only 140,000 residents of Australia. But those things have to be carted on rail or on roads. I was pleased to see that the federal budget continues to fund the Murray Basin Rail Project, with a $440 million upgrade. We are now seeing upgrades on our roads. Of course, something I'd like to see more of, frankly, is Roads to Recovery. There is no point producing something on a farm and not being able to get that onto a national road. You still need to be able to get that 60-tonne B-double down that dirt country road to get the product to the market. I think we should be doing more, and we should continue a higher allocation of that.
One of the things that is also very relevant to the people in my patch is funding for pensioners. Now, I'm going to touch on this a little bit. There are 20,234 pensioners in the electorate of Mallee. Whilst I was pleased to see that a pensioner can earn $300 per fortnight without it upsetting their pension payments, I would have liked to have seen that able to be accumulated in a lump sum and then averaged across a year. I will explain why this is. Three hundred dollars per fortnight is $7,800 over a 12-month period.
Increasingly, many of our senior Australians are going to be an important aspect of filling the labour shortage, particularly in a horticultural region. I was at Boundary Bend Olives the other day, and they were picking their olive harvest. They were employing 130 people for about an eight-week period. They have people who tend to be grey nomads who come in and work. Once they've worked the harvest, they will go up to Queensland and spend the money there, or maybe they'll even go down to Tasmania and spend the money down there, which would make some members in this place very happy—or even across to South Australia, if they're really scraping the barrel for places they might go to visit!
We should be empowering them to do that seasonal work. Rather than making it just $300 per fortnight, it makes sense that they could accumulate $7,800—so work a vintage, work a season in horticulture or work somewhere—and then go away and take their holidays, and they will largely spend that money locally. So, whilst I'm very pleased to see that our pensioners can earn a little bit more without it upsetting their pension, I would like that to be able to be accumulated and then averaged over a 12-month period both to provide an incentive for our workforce in our horticultural industry and to create more flexibility for our senior Australians who choose to do something in the workforce. I've got to say: pensioners have a lot of skills. We should empower them. They've still got a lot to offer Australia.
One thing I think we need to look at very seriously in a welfare payment—and it concerns me a great deal—is the impacts on single pensioners. If you are two pensioners living in a household, by the time you pay your rates and by the time you pay your power bill, you can get through. It's not a rich, vibrant living, but you can get through. But what happens when one of those pensioners passes away? The rates still need to be paid. The power bill still needs to be paid. I think that, if there's one thing in the welfare budget that we should look at some increases in, it should be that single widow pension. I think that would be a very interesting and compassionate response, particularly when people find themselves in those hardships, and in the light of the expenses of daily living.
I was very pleased to see $51.3 million put aside for agricultural counsellors. It's one thing to have a free trade agreement, but a free trade agreement simply opens an opportunity. There's no point having an opportunity unless you can turn an opportunity into a reality. A lot of our producers produce very, very good product. In my patch, there is really nothing you can eat that isn't grown in the Mallee, be it table grapes, be it carrots—25 per cent of Australia's carrots—or be it citrus. I was told once that the only thing you can't catch in the Mallee is a Murray cod, because technically it's on the South Australian side once you get on the water, and all that water is making its good way down to South Australia to be used effectively there as well. You've got to be able to turn those opportunities into reality, and the additional $51.3 million to do that is very welcome.
As well, something that, whilst not in the budget, slipped through the radar for many people is the unlocking of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan that came with the SDLs. I'll explain why this is relevant to my patch. One of the great lessons we've learnt out of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is that you can achieve good environmental outcomes with the investment of some pumps, some dams, some risers and a culvert here or there. People may not have realised this, but there will be $300 million worth of investment—think about that: $300 million worth of investment—in the electorate of Mallee to deliver seven environmental water projects, and they have to be built by 2024. Whilst the budget was going on here, in the other chamber over there they were passing the SDLs. This will achieve better management of our water as well as unleashing quite a substantial amount of infrastructure that has to take place in my patch.
One of the other great things in the budget, which is a small thing, which appeals to me as an aviator as well as a farmer, was $260 million for the GPS satellite based augmentation strategy. For people who don't understand what that is—I first saw this in Canada—essentially you can have inter-row sowing and GPS technology. Instead of it taking five metres, it will get it down to 10 centimetres, so the accuracy is substantially improved. There's also a big advantage for aviators—and I am one—in being able to do GPS approaches to airports.
There are a lot of good things in this budget. There are a lot of things to be proud of. There are things that we can do better, and we should always have that robust debate. I do not hold the view that everything we do on our side of the parliament is perfect and everything the other side does is wrong and evil, or vice versa, but we need to ensure that we spend Australians' money wisely, create incentive and look after those who can't look after themselves. I think this is a very fair and reasonable budget.
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (17:30): I often end up following the member for Mallee's speeches for some reason. He's a good speaker and I do enjoy listening to his contributions. I'd like to say a couple of things, if you don't mind, Deputy Speaker, following his contribution. He mentioned the instant asset write-off. I'm very proud that the government had included this. I would remind him that in 2013, when the coalition came to government, they axed the instant asset write-off that was in place under Labor. They killed it stone dead, much to my disappointment. So I was very pleased to see it return, member for Mallee. It was a good decision and one that Labor has been backing all the way through. He made mention of the Building Better Regions Fund and round 3. I'm very disappointed that in Tasmania we've seen very little of this money. I look forward to perhaps seeing a little more of it. Maybe they'll open it up in time for the Braddon by-election and we'll see some rolling in.
Mr Broad: Heaven forbid!
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL: Yes, heaven forbid! We heard the Prime Minister today talk about the supposed falsehood of education cuts. We all know that schools had funding budgeted to them. It was in the budget papers in black and white. A certain figure was in the budget papers a couple of years ago and that figure was cut. So it's good to see that funding in total is now on the increase, but that's from a low base—a base that's already been cut. There'd be a lot more money for schools in your electorate, member for Mallee, if those cuts had not been made by this Treasurer.
I come to the budget. Two weeks ago, we listened as a Liberal Treasurer handed down a Liberal budget that again failed the fairness test. There was a $17 billion handout for big banks while cutting $17 billion from schools. What illustrates a budget that's unfair better than that? Here we have banks before a royal commission admitting to things like forging signatures, charging dead people fees and charging for services that were not delivered. So here we have the banks admitting to all of these things and this government's tough action for those crimes is to give them $17 billion in tax breaks. A round of applause for the tough action of this government! There was a $17 billion handout for banks while cutting $17 billion from schools. New aged-care packages are paid for by stripping the residential aged-care places. There is not one extra dollar for aged care; just a shuffling of the deck. There is a $270 million cut for TAFE. What a great way to train Aussie kids for jobs of the future: cutting their pathways to that future by cutting TAFE and training on top of the government's entire axing of the trade training centre program when it first came to government in 2013! I think that was one of the most scandalous decisions of this government. Those trade training centres were a project of the former Prime Minister, John Howard. I would have thought the Liberals would have been proud of that program. Labor liked that program and we kept it in place when we were in government. It worked. It gave kids who wanted to train for the future a place to gain skills, and one of the very first acts of the Liberals upon coming to power was to axe trade training centres. That cut, the cuts to TAFE and the drop in apprenticeships of 130,000 over the last five years all add up to a government that is not looking after the interests of young people. Thank you, Member for Mallee!
The government will make a $127 million cut to the ABC, all because this organisation dares to report news that this government doesn't like and airs opinions this government doesn't agree with. There's no reason I can think of as to why this government would be cutting that sort of money from the ABC other than just sheer malice against the national broadcaster. They might think they're being a bit smart in doing it, but we're talking about a funding cut that will result in less money for children's broadcasting, less money for drama production, less money for news and current affairs and, as far as I'm concerned, less money for regional and rural reporting. The ABC does a wonderful job in the regions in bringing the stories of country Australia to the rest of Australia, and that will all be put at risk because of this government's petty vindictiveness. The list goes on.
The big shining light of this budget, apparently, is a $10 a week, or about $540 a year, tax cut for working Australians. That's lorded as the government's major achievement of this budget—a 10-bucks-a-week tax cut. But they keep quiet about the more than $7,000 a year that they plan to give back to high-income earners, like every member in this place, bank executives, lawyers and highly paid surgeons. Anybody on more than $200,000 a year, by the time this government's tax program gets through the parliament, if it gets through the parliament, will be getting $7,000 a year back in tax breaks, when ordinary workers will get back just over $500. What an absolute disgrace when it comes to fairness. Australians expect better than this second-rate attempt to copy the failed trickle-down economic model that has wreaked absolute havoc across the once mighty American middle class. Trickle-down has been in place in America for the last 30 or 40 years, since Reagan. Kansas tried to take it even further; they've doubled back. I see the member for Brisbane having a bit of a chuckle—he's a member of the IPA brigade, I believe, or the retailers.
Ms Flint interjecting—
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL: Sorry, the IPA brigade is over there—the member for Boothby.
Ms Flint: We know you're Labor. You don't believe in freedom.
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL: I don't believe in trickle-down, Member for Boothby. Trickle-down is a failed experiment. They've had it in place in America for 40 years. It has absolutely failed. You've got a widening gap of income in America. The once mighty middle class in America that everybody aspired to—the great American middle class; the great American dream—has gone. People are casualised and contracted out. There are low wages. You've got the wealthy getting wealthier, rich beyond comprehension, whereas everybody else is living in their car. There was a woman living in her car doing three jobs at, I think, a doughnut shop and other franchises. She died in her car because she was living in her car between shifts instead of being able to go home. This is the reality of trickle-down economics in America and this is the future that we can expect in Australia if those failed policies gain a bigger foothold here than they have already.
Mr Fletcher: Why don't you find another rhetorical straw man to attack?
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL: I wouldn't speak of straw men, Minister.
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL: The straw man is a character without a brain, Minister—I'd be careful there! Trickle-down economics is a model that makes those with money even richer but leaves those without even further behind. So Labor absolutely rejects trickle-down. We reject it completely. What we believe in—
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Order!
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL: The pink and grey galah is having a bit of a squawk down there at the dispatch box, so I'd ask him to pipe down.
We believe in trickle-up. We know that the best growth comes from feeding the roots, not the leaves. You don't spray the leaves; you feed the roots. You provide strong foundations to an economy—strong foundations in health, education, infrastructure and community services. You feed the grassroots. You feed the people. You feed the masses at the bottom. You don't feed the top; they're getting enough. You feed the bottom. You provide strong foundations in all of these services.
Yet this Liberal budget, like all Liberal budgets before it, fails this test. It's all about the top end of town, and that does not help the people of my electorate. The medium household income in Lyons is $981 per week. That's less than both the Australian average and the Tasmanian average. People in my electorate are not wealthy. It doesn't mean they don't work hard. They do. And it doesn't mean they don't deserve respect. But this government believes that, for a $10 tax cut, the people of my electorate will forget about the health and hospital cuts, they'll forget about the cuts to schools, TAFEs, trade centres and universities, they'll forget about the cuts to pensions and the robo-debt scandal, and they'll forget about the second-rate NBN. Well, the people of my electorate are smarter than that. They won't forget about these cuts and the difficulties that this government has placed upon them.
We all know this is a government that can't be trusted. It says it will build a new $461 million bridge in Bridgewater in my electorate. But a detailed look at the budget pages shows a glaring hole in the budget allocations. Just $25 million is earmarked in the forward estimates. Now $25 million is a lot of money, but it's not going to build a bridge. There is no time frame and no detail. It is a promise from a government that also promised no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no cuts to pensions, no cuts to the ABC and then cut the lot of them. It provides little comfort to the people of my electorate that this is a government that cannot be trusted.
This budget shows just how much disregard this government has for rural and regional communities and people by failing to commit to new rounds of the Mobile Black Spot Program.
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Order! The member for Lyons has the call.
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL: It's alright, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, I appreciate the protection but I don't require it. The chicken hawk can continue squawking. The pink-and-grey galah down there can keep going and squawk all he likes.
Connectivity is vital in a regional electorate that's prone to bushfire. It can mean the difference between life and death. But this budget ends mobile black spot funding at the end of the next financial year. As those opposite always like to remind us, mobile black spot funding was one of their initiatives. It was a good one; they should have kept it. It ends next year, a decision condemned not only by members on this side of the House but, I would certainly hope, by regional members on the opposite side. It was a short-sighted, stupid decision. When you consider that there is $80 billion to give to corporations and banks but not even a few million to address critical communications gaps in our regions, you really do have to wonder about the priorities of this government when it comes to regional Australia.
This budget is an affront to Australians everywhere. It's only Labor that will provide a budget that is responsible and gives Australians a fair go. Labor has a plan to deliver lower taxes for 10 million Australians. Under its plan, every Australian earning up to $125,000 a year will pay less tax. In my electorate of Lyons, 90 per cent of workers earn less than $90,000 a year. Labor's plan has real benefits for every single one of those people, and every single one of them will be better off under Labor's plan than under the coalition's plan. Only Labor's plan also results in better-funded schools and universities and a better-resourced TAFE, providing people, including our young people, with the knowledge, skills and training they need to reach their goals and enter the careers and industries they want to.
Only Labor reverses this government's billion-dollar cuts to health and hospitals, creating better systems across the country that are able to accommodate demand and minimise waiting lists. It's no secret that the Tasmanian health system, under the Liberal government in Tasmania, is one of the worst in the country, with appalling outcomes, ambulance ramping and long waiting times for surgery. You name it, it's behind on every measure. It is poorly resourced an unable to meet the needs of the community. Tasmania's health system needs national support. It's not going to come from this government, but it will come from Labor. Labor has made that commitment. For too long, Tasmania has been neglected by this Liberal government. Tasmania has been ignored for the past five years. It's clear that this government thinks it can buy back support with a $10-a-week tax cut and vague promises of infrastructure that will be given at some undetermined time in the future. But Tasmania will not forgive or forget this government's arrogance, nor will Tasmanians tolerate this government's pandering to the Prime Minister's big business and big bank mates. Tasmanians will not respond well to the government's habit of abandoning rural and regional communities when they need assistance most.
We had a speech in the Federation Chamber earlier today on the member for Grey's motion on suicide prevention trials—which has bipartisan support, I must say. The glaring fact out of that speech and that motion was that rural and regional communities suffer with that issue. It's rural and regional communities that need support. It is rural and regional communities that are left behind under this government's budget. We need to do better, and only Labor will do better.
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (17:45): I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019 and the other appropriations bills before the House and commend the work of the Treasurer in particular for his work on this budget. This is a budget that is good for my electorate on the Central Coast and is good for Australia. In my time today I'd like to talk about five local examples of why this is the case. Firstly, we're delivering safer communities in places like McEvoy Oval at Umina Beach. Secondly, we're backing small businesses like Six String Brewing at Erina. Thirdly, older Australians are being supported while also being protected from Labor's retiree tax. Fourthly, we're seeing tax cuts for almost 60,000 low- and middle-income earners in Robertson while guaranteeing the essentials like Medicare. Finally, we're delivering infrastructure that our region needs, like better local roads and infrastructure that rejuvenates Gosford and our region, such as the performing arts and conference centre.
I'm starting with safety and security, because I know that for many people of all ages this is their No. 1 concern. Last week we were joined by the Minister for Home Affairs, the member for Dickson, who met with local residents at Ettalong Beach, and then a couple of days later by the Assistant Minister for Home Affairs, the member for Mitchell, who made a significant announcement at Umina Beach. I thank both of them for joining me on the peninsula, because this was a week when we took another step forward in uniting with our community against crime, vandalism and antisocial behaviour.
At Umina Beach, we gathered at the fabulous Jasmine Greens Park Kiosk to announce new funding from the government's Safer Communities Fund for CCTV cameras to keep our region safe. The cameras will be located at the Peninsula Recreation Precinct, where the cafe is located, at McEvoy Oval at Umina Beach, at the San Remo BMX park and at Banjo's Skate Park in Terrigal, where construction is underway. The funding boost was welcomed by local community leaders who came with us to hear the news firsthand over a coffee and some beautiful food prepared by Gabby Greyem, including Rod Unsworth and Mark Nitsos from the Umina Community Group, Stuart Field and his son Ronan from Woy Woy Peninsula Little Athletics—one of the groups who use McEvoy Oval—Matt Sawyer from the Peninsula Touch Association, Matt Cooper and Senior Constable Paul Scollon from Umina Beach PCYC, Central Coast councillor and advocate Jilly Pilon—who was also there to speak about Banjo's Skate Park—and Detective Inspector John Zdrilic from the Brisbane Water police district in the New South Wales Police Force. Of course, we were hosted by Gabby Greyem from Jasmine Greens, who really has been a tireless community advocate, particularly on this issue.
Police tell us how CCTV cameras are an effective crime prevention measure, a valuable investigative tool and a deterrent to antisocial behaviour. McEvoy Oval, a local community hub as well as a sports field, will be covered, and it will help to protect the new amenities block, which was recently opened thanks to funding from all three levels of government and the local clubs themselves. The driving force behind that project was Kylie Brown from Woy Woy Peninsula Little Athletics Club, who told us that the club facilities at McEvoy Oval are often targeted, sadly, by vandals with graffiti, including just a few days ago, and in fact goods were stolen from the sporting clubs, resulting in a flow-on cost to the community to repair that damage. So Kylie said that this CCTV funding is most welcome at such a pivotal time for the club.
The funding is being committed under round 2 of the coalition's Safer Communities Fund, and I'm advised that the budget also allows for a third round of funding, which we are already starting to plan for and will no doubt advocate for. Keeping our communities safe also benefits small businesses, and there's great news in this budget for them too. Our economic plan has delivered more than one million jobs into the Australian economy over the last five years, which is of great benefit to so many households and businesses. Parts of our ongoing plan are our small- and medium-business tax cuts, which will help more than 15,000 local businesses with turnovers of up to $50 million if they're incorporated and up to $5 million if they're unincorporated as they look to invest, employ and pay their workers more.
This budget also extends the popular instant asset write-off for small businesses for a further 12 months. Small businesses with turnovers of up to $10 million can benefit from writing off assets costing less than $20,000, and I'm advised that well over a thousand local businesses in my electorate have already taken advantage of this great initiative.
But, ultimately, it's not the government that creates jobs; it's business, which is why we need to listen to industries who have specific needs so that they can continue to grow. One of these industries is craft brewers, many of which are Australian owned, such as Six String Brewing in Erina and Block 'n Tackle in Kincumber. This budget means that craft brewers and distillers will no longer pay additional tax, allowing them to compete on fairer terms with large beverage companies. As part of our commitment, the government will increase the amount beverage companies can claim back on their excise and extend the concessional draft beer excise rate to smaller kegs like the sizes typically used by craft brewers.
To find out exactly how our local brewers would benefit, we went down to Six String on a Friday afternoon for a drink and a chat with Chris Benson and Ryan Harris, owners of Six String, along with Chris's wife, Sharon. Chris told me the announcement was a much-needed recognition for independent breweries as an emerging industry with different needs from the bigger beer companies. As the owner of a small business, Chris said this tax cut will make Six String more flexible, with increased cash flow allowing them to expand, employ more staff and invest in things such as larger tanks to increase the capacity of the brewery itself. It will open the doer to new local products. They've got a number of new beers, such as the delicious and inventive chai latte beer, and it's expected to lead to a downward pressure on beer prices. Nationally, there are around 380 craft breweries in Australia, employing the equivalent of almost 2,400 people, and I commend this budget for backing small businesses like these.
Building a strong economy also means we can keep supporting older Australians and guaranteeing the essentials like Medicare. My electorate has almost 31,000 people over the age of 65, and in this budget we made some important announcements providing more choice so they can live healthier, more independent and safer lives. This includes more financial security by increasing the pension work bonus, expanding the Pension Loans Scheme and delivering relevant skills and training advice to help workers build their careers or transition to jobs in new industries. We're also offering more choice, with 14,000 additional high-level home-care places by 2021-22, adding to the 6,000 places provided since last year's budget.
The budget also guarantees the funding of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which is a major breakthrough so that Australians with a permanent significant disability receive the best care we can provide. It's important for my electorate on the Central Coast, where, once it's fully rolled out, it will directly help almost 3,000 people and their families.
There's also a strong focus on health in this budget. To begin with, hospitals will receive record funding. Under our new agreement, New South Wales public hospitals will receive over $39.5 billion over the five years to 2024-25, delivering an additional $8.9 billion in funding the compared to the previous five years—up 29 per cent. Medicare, medicines and mental health are also getting a boost, including through the legislated Medicare Guarantee Fund, meaning we can help people to access life-saving medicines for breast cancer and spinal muscular atrophy. I've already spoken with the Minister for Health about the wonderful $1.3 billion National Health and Medical Industry Growth Plan, which will transform and save lives through world-leading medical developments as well as create tens of thousands of new jobs. This includes $500 million for the Genomics Health Futures Mission, which will help Australians live longer and receive better treatment personalised to their medical needs.
This funding boost comes at a really ideal time for the Central Coast where we're seeing an exciting transformation in Gosford with the arrival of the new medical school and research institute on the grounds of the newly upgraded Gosford Hospital. This is a game changer for our region: an $85 million project funded across this government, the New South Wales government and the University of Newcastle. As well as providing a university presence in Gosford and all the jobs and opportunities that will bring, we will also have links with the University of Newcastle's global advisory board, which has connections with the great universities of the world, like Cambridge and New York. It will be a centre of excellence in medical teaching and an international hub for integrated healthcare research and innovation. A collaborative task force has already been working behind the scenes on how the medical school and research institute can be the catalyst for even more jobs, growth and opportunities, including by potentially attracting major corporations to choose Gosford as their base.
As my team and I were meeting with local families across Saratoga and Davistown on Saturday, many people were pleased to hear about this project and some, like Edith on Davistown Road, were also concerned about what we are doing for young people. So I'm pleased to see this budget delivers $110 million in additional investment in child and youth mental health services, with a focus on providing mental health services to children within the school setting. There's also $338 million in new mental health funding with a focus on suicide prevention, research and older Australians. An additional one million people will receive diagnosis, treatment and recovery through a new Million Minds Mission in mental health research with funding of $125 million over the next decade.
For those who need to see a GP without worrying about their hip pocket, the number of GP services that are bulk billed continues to rise, with figures from the July to March period of around 648,000. This is an increase of more than 111,000 since Labor were last in government, with the total percentage of GP bulk billing services sitting at 86.6 per cent, which is up three per cent since the coalition was elected. We will also guarantee the essentials when it comes to schools funding, with government and independent schools funding in my electorate rising by $43.4 million when comparing this school year to the 2027 school year. The Catholic school system across Australia also receives a boost. Funding growth for Catholic schools will be $2.93 billion from now to 2027, a growth of 46.3 per cent. And children of preschool age will benefit from a multimillion-dollar preschool funding boost, which, in my electorate, will mean over 2,000 children will be able to access 15 hours of quality early learning in the year before school.
But families are also concerned about the cost of living and that is why a central part of this budget is tax relief, with a focus on low- and middle-income earners, particularly on the Central Coast. Almost 60,000 taxpayers in the Robertson electorate alone will receive an offset of up to $530 a year under our plan to reduce cost pressures on household budgets. For example, a high school teacher earning $75,000 will have an extra $530 in their pocket from the budget year onwards, with an extra $3,740 in their pocket over the first seven years of the tax plan. A shop assistant in Erina on $45,000 will have an extra $440 in their pocket from the budget year onwards, with an extra $3,380 in their pocket over the first seven years of the tax plan as the tax relief increases. We are also lifting tax brackets to ensure wages don't get eaten by higher taxes and to ensure the government lives within its means. What this translates to is a forecast return to a modest budget balance in 2019-20, increasing to a projected surplus of $11 billion in 2020-21, meaning we will no longer be borrowing to pay for essential services.
Finally, this budget helps deliver the infrastructure that the Central Coast deserves by confirming funding for major projects. We are investing $10 million to help Gosford's long-awaited world-class regional performing arts and conference centre on the site of the former Broadwater Hotel on Mann Street, which will fulfil a decades old dream of our community. The government has invested $7 million towards projects that rejuvenate Gosford such as the regional library learning hub. We are also delivering on our commitment to 600 new jobs in the nearby ATO building. The Somersby Industrial Estate, Banjo's skate park and Terrigal Trojans House upgrade were all confirmed in the budget, along with roads funding for the Central Coast Council through the Roads to Recovery Program election commitments such as the upgrade of Oceana Street at Copacabana. Other road commitments are either already completed or well under way, such as the roundabout on the intersection of Langford Drive and Woy Woy Road in Kariong and Ryans Road at Umina Beach.
Thousands of hardworking local commuters are also benefitting from our commitments, which I'll shortly speak about in more detail elsewhere in the House today. This includes NorthConnex—the M1, M2 missing link—plus our commitment to continuous mobile coverage on trains with Wi-Fi at train stations. These commitments are on track, along with funding from the New South Wales government business case to investigate faster rail options between Sydney and Newcastle.
I strongly commend this budget and these appropriation bills to the House. I do so because of all the reasons outlined today but also because of people like Meredith, from Daleys Point, who wrote to me to say thank you. She said she was so glad there is better help for older people still needing to work. She made particular mention of the Treasurer, who said that, ultimately, it is not the government's money to spend but belongs to the hard-working people of Australia. On a personal note Meredith said, 'Thank you for your kind birthday wishes and birthday card.' Meredith, I hope you had a very happy birthday and that you can plan for even more birthdays in the future with even greater confidence under this government. I commend these bills to the House.
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (18:00): Back in 2005, prior to the global financial crisis, the member for Wentworth, as a backbencher, commissioned a paper on tax reform entitled Taxation Reform in Australia: Some Alternatives and Indicative Costings. The paper advocated for lower tax rates and a simplified system—in particular, a flatter tax structure. Thirteen years later, after the GFC, the now Prime Minister is finally trying to bring his wishes for a flatter income tax structure to fruition. The paper also noted that arguments for taxing capital gains at the same rate as income are compelling ones. To simplify the argument back in 2005: if you try to tax higher income earners too much, they will be pushed into tax minimisation strategies such as negative gearing and taking full advantage of the capital gains tax discount. Such discounts should be removed, the paper advocated.
So it appears that Prime Minister Turnbull should really be supporting Labor's proposed changes in those areas. Instead, this budget looks after big business at the expense of people who work and struggle. Australians earning as much as $200,000 will be subject to the same tax rate as those earning as little as $41,000 under the tax plan put forward by Scott Morrison to flatten Australia's taxation system, previously known as a progressive taxation system.
Budget tax cuts through to 2024 and 2025 will be less progressive than in our current system and will only help the rich get richer. The promise of income tax cuts worth $140 billion would, as the member for Wentworth's 2005 paper noted, bring the vast majority of working Australians into the same tax bracket, meaning that high-income earners would contribute a much smaller proportion of overall tax revenue than they currently do. In two elections time, the government proposes a shift towards this flat tax system, where the current 37 per cent tax bracket would be axed and workers on incomes between $41,000 and $200,000 would be taxed at the same marginal rate—quite a boon if you are a high-income earner.
In the electorate of Burt, the average income earner is on around $60,000 a year. How on earth is it fair for a construction worker on $60,000 a year to pay the same tax rate as a CEO or a lawyer who is earning $200,000 a year? How can it be fair that, under this tax experiment being put forward by the government, the lawyer or accountant, earning more than three times as much as a construction worker, gets a tax cut that is more than three times as big? In fact, The West Australian newspaper crunched the numbers on Mr Turnbull's unfair tax plan and found that those living in the leafy western suburbs of Perth would pocket an income tax cut of, on average, 11½ times the size of the cut that workers in the suburbs of Gosnells and Armadale, in my electorate, will be receiving. How is 60 per cent of the tax cuts ending up in the pockets of the top 20 per cent of households fair?
The Liberals say they want to deliver tax relief for low- and middle-income Australians. But their income tax plan is holding people hostage for tax cuts. If they really cared about low- to middle-income earners, they would split their proposals so that those that come into effect from 1 July could be supported but those that will only provide a benefit for high-income earners could be avoided. Instead, it seems that this government only cares about the top end of town.
It's interesting, though, to note that the International Monetary Fund says that taxing the super-rich will help reduce inequality without having an adverse impact on growth. The head of the IMF's fiscal affairs unit said that the average top income rate for the rich country members of the OECD—that includes Australia—had fallen by nearly 30 per cent since 1981. If that had occurred for ordinary income earners in Australia, they'd now pay no tax at all. He said there was scope for a more progressive system to tax the rich at higher rates in an effort to redistribute income to those who are less well off.
Meanwhile, this government's budget seeks to do exactly the opposite. The government has not only failed the fairness test set by Labor and, more importantly, by the community; it's also failed the fiscal responsibility test that it set for itself. Net debt for this coming year is double what it was when the Liberals came to office, while gross debt will remain well above half a trillion dollars for each year for the next decade. Both types of debt are growing faster under this government than under the previous government, and the previous government had to contend with the GFC.
Labor's approach to the budget for this nation is fairer for middle Australia and the most vulnerable people in our community, and it's more responsible when it comes to budget repair. Labor would deliver lower taxes for 10 million working Australians. Labor's plan will see those earning up to $125,000 a year still paying less tax than they would under the Liberals. Indeed, under Labor's plan, four million working Australians would receive nearly double the tax cut that they would under this Liberal government.
But the unfairness of the budget doesn't stop at its approach to income tax. This budget raises questions about how committed this Liberal government is to helping Western Australia with its financial woes, with the Turnbull government, over the term of this budget, halving its infrastructure spend for Western Australia. The budget papers also reveal that the only money that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer will provide Western Australia to help with its low allocation of GST is $189 million in this current financial year. There is no extra money to be provided in the budget year or in any of the forward estimates after that. Under the Liberal budget, WA is set to receive only the equivalent of a 50c GST share.
Even the infrastructure funding for Western Australia that the Prime Minister came to announce pre budget is a hoax. It was stated that Western Australia would be receiving an infrastructure spend of $3.2 billion. But then, once we saw the budget delivered and we got into the detail of the budget papers, it shows not only that actually there is no new infrastructure money in this budget but also that, over the period of the budget, the infrastructure spend is only down at $1.2 billion.
This compares to Labor's commitment of a $1.6 billion WA fair share fund, which will provide Western Australia with the equivalent of 70c in the dollar GST. Maybe it's this contrast that explains why the government is hiding the recently delivered Productivity Commission report on GST distribution—and only the Liberals are hiding from the people of Western Australia. Not only are they hiding this Productivity Commission report but they're running away from the by-elections to be held in Perth and Fremantle.
Now, everyone can see that this government is about mates rates on tax, helping those who earn the most, handing $80 billion to the biggest businesses and the banks, as well as its ongoing protection racket for the banks, trying to avoid a royal commission and then, as we've seen in the budget, defunding ASIC and defunding the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. It's no wonder that this Liberal government is cutting and running.
Only Labor is committed to delivering a fair go for Western Australia by delivering the infrastructure, health and education funding that WA needs, as well as providing actually budgeted GST assistance. Only Labor is committed to delivering lower taxes that are fair for millions of working Australians. Labor's approach to the budget is fairer for middle Australia and for the most vulnerable in our community and more responsible when it comes to budget repair. We will deliver extra funding for public hospitals. We'll deliver 20 new MRI machines for regional centres and outer suburbs. We'll abolish Mr Turnbull's cap on university places, and we'll abolish up-front fees for 100,000 TAFE places, to help Australians build their skills. Bear that in contrast to the $270 million cut in funding for TAFE under this government's budget. Labor can deliver on these commitments because, unlike this government, we won't be giving away $80 billion in tax cuts to big business and the banks.
Under a Shorten Labor government, we will achieve a budget coming back into balance in the same year as the government. We'll deliver a bigger cumulative budget surplus over the forward estimates, as well as substantially bigger surpluses over the 10-year medium term, and we'll put the majority of the savings raised from our revenue measures over the medium term towards budget repair and paying down debt. A Shorten Labor government will also be guided by clear fiscal principles, including repairing the budget in a fair way that doesn't ask the most vulnerable Australians to carry the heaviest burden. We will more than offset new spending with our savings and revenue improvements. This is in stark contrast to the approach of this government. We will be able to bank changes in receipts and payments from changes in the economy, and this will be seen in a positive bottom line for our budget—something this government has never seen—because Labor has made the tough calls, tough calls that this government has decided to try and pay us out on, on things like negative gearing, capital gains tax, looking at how income is split through trusts and, of course, the dividend imputation refund. By closing these loopholes, we will be able to make sure that we're able to provide the essential services that all Australians need.
Our plan is fairer and more responsible because it makes sure that those that are most vulnerable in our community are looked after, and it makes sure that we get budget repair done in a fair way. We're able to do that because we've made the big calls and we've got them right. We will of course support supply, but once again we see in this budget the stark contrast between Labor's fair approach and this government's mean, arrogant, out-of-touch, wrong priorities. Let's hope that this budget is their last.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (18:12): I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019 and the related appropriations bills. I note that these bills demonstrate the benefits of the sound economic management that we've seen once again from the Liberal-National government. The benefit of focusing on jobs and growth flows through to everyone in Australia, most obviously to those who directly benefit from the jobs this government is helping to create—a record number of jobs, I've got to say; one million jobs since Labor left government.
Having more people than ever in jobs means that there's less pressure on the welfare budget. Having more people than ever in jobs means that there's greater tax revenue to facilitate the things that we all need and want. A stronger economy means that we can spend more on health care. A stronger economy means that we can invest more in education. A stronger economy means that we can start paying down the debt that Labor left behind. A stronger economy also means that families can start keeping more of their own money. We recognise on this side of the House that tax cuts are not a handout. When Labor spruiks handouts and giving away money, they fail to acknowledge that it was their money in the first place. Taxing someone less is not giving them money; it is letting them keep more of their own money, and that is exactly what this government is doing.
The federal budget that the Treasurer brought down earlier this month recognises that cost of living is a major issue for most families, especially those on low to middle incomes. By giving back in lump sum up to $530 each to those low- and middle-income earners, this government will immediately ease cost-of-living pressures. Our tax relief will make it easier for families to pay their electricity bills. It will make it easier for a family to pay their car registration or their council rates bill. A stronger economy also enables investment in major infrastructure projects, which in turn creates jobs as well. A stronger economy also enables investment in our communities.
Representatives from regional areas always face the challenge of ensuring that we see a fair share returned to the regions, especially to the regions where the wealth is created. The regions of Central Queensland and North Queensland punch well above their weight when it comes to delivering dollars into the coffers of both state and national governments. But we often get a raw deal when it comes to seeing some of that wealth reinvested into the region to address our infrastructure and industry needs. However, I've got to say we've been seeing some pretty big wins lately. Many of our big wins have centred around major upgrades of the Bruce Highway that have addressed concerns that North Queenslanders have been raising with me for some time.
In 2012, I led a convoy of Liberal-National politicians, including former Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss, along the entire 1,700-kilometre stretch of the Bruce Highway, highlighting places that needed attention most urgently. That convoy and my 'fix the Bruce' campaign worked, securing record funding for the Bruce Highway, and major projects like the Mackay ring road are now under construction. This project will provide a new major crossing of the Bruce Highway. It will take highway traffic out of the city, easing congestion, especially during peak hour. It will also take dangerous heavy trucks off the local streets. Just as importantly, it will create local jobs. I've spoken with a number of contractors and workers on site about the number of local people who have secured their jobs on the back of this infrastructure project. Those jobs came at a time when they were badly needed. But half a billion dollars of works in stage 1 of the Mackay ring road is only the beginning. We still need to close the loop on this ring road, and I'll be working to secure funds for the second stage of the ring road from measures that were announced in the budget.
The Liberal-National government allocated $3.5 billion to Roads of Strategic Importance, and $1½ billion of that package is earmarked specifically for northern Australia. A further $1.4 billion was announced in the budget for the Bruce Highway but as yet is not allocated to any specific project. I'll also be fighting for funds out of those allocations to be set aside to flood-proof the Goorganga Plains area of the Bruce Highway just south of Proserpine. Goorganga Creek floods very easily and very regularly, with heavy rain cutting off the Whitsunday Coast Airport from the actual Whitsunday coast. That means that flights from southern capitals are sometimes returned to their airports of origin and tourists can't get to where they want to go. The Queensland government's Department of Transport and Main Roads has begun the essential planning work on that project because of $12 million in federal funding, which this budget points to. Outcomes from that planning process will inform what needs to be done and what funds will be required to keep the north moving.
The Bruce Highway is a vital link for all of Queensland, connecting industries and products with end users. In this Liberal-National government's budget, we saw—as we have seen over the last few budgets—the spending of a record $6.7 billion on the Bruce Highway. As I said before, a major part of that was on the Mackay ring road. But there is another Bruce Highway project in my electorate that's also worth half a billion dollars, and that is the replacement of the Haughton River bridge, identified by people in my electorate as the most urgent black spot that needs fixing. That project not only replaces the ageing and unsafe Haughton River bridge; it includes another two overpasses, a number of different bridges that are going to go over flood-prone areas and the upgrade of about nine intersections along a 14-kilometre section of the Bruce Highway. The federal government is providing $411 million towards this project—as I said, it's worth a total of half a billion dollars or more—and works kicks off in the middle of this year. We pushed to bring that forward when the state government said it couldn't come forward, and we've brought that project on this coming calendar year. Further south, we've already invested $57 million into the Sandy Gully bridge upgrade, just north of Bowen. Sandy Gully is another regularly flood-prone area, cutting access to Abbot Point for workers who are based in Bowen, further south in Mackay and in the Whitsundays. It also severed the Bruce Highway—the arterial transport link that keeps the north moving—right there and then. These road projects all create jobs for the north. Most of those jobs, though, as we know, only last during the construction of that particular infrastructure project, but they increase freight movements as well, and that adds to a greater economy, which creates long-term jobs.
Talking about long-term jobs, we're seeing the benefits of the regional jobs and investment package that I fought so hard to secure during the lead-up to the 2016 election. North Queensland suffered badly during the downturn in the resources sector, and that's why I pushed for a jobs package to address the needs of regional centres around the Bowen Basin area. The Liberal-National government recognised the importance of those regional economies and the dollars that the mining industry and mining communities contribute through royalties, through wages and through taxes. We're now seeing the fruit of all that work, with more than $9.7 million from the government contributed towards investments that total about $50 million in that region. In Mackay, the Liberal-National government provided $1.6 million to D&T Hardchrome so they could build an industrial standard electroplating and finishing facility in Paget. D&T have been a great contributor to the mining services sector in Mackay, and this particular project will provide access to services that previously have had to be sourced far beyond the mining region where they are needed. Another funding project in Mackay was $420,000 provided to Diacon, a local company who will expand their plastic conveyor protection systems business. There was $250,000 to Linked Group Services to help them showcase their energy efficiency initiatives. In total, there's been a federal government investment of about $2½ million in four projects worth about $12 million in Mackay. These projects will create 84 jobs, the vast majority of which will be ongoing, so we are directly creating permanent jobs from this one-off investment. In the Whitsundays, we announced $5.8 million of funding under the Regional Jobs and Investment Packages for the Ozone Whitsundays Eco Resort at Riordanvale. This is a $37 million development and it'll feature contemporary villas, a striking wedding and conference venue, and a boutique native fauna park. When it's complete, it'll create more than 100 jobs and boost land based tourism options for one of Australia's premier tourism destinations in the Whitsundays. In Bowen, that same jobs package is delivering $1½ million for the Murroona Gardens aged-care facility.
One of the most important industries in North Queensland is defence, with the Townsville city being home to the Army's Lavarack Barracks, a RAAF base, the Townsville Field Training Area as well as the port of Townsville's Berth 10, which is designed for the Royal Australian Navy. Consequently, we in the north were jubilant about Queensland's win of the $1.8 billion Land 400 Defence deal. That deal will have big benefits for Townsville. About 150 Boxer super-tanks—I guess they're not tanks; they're weaponised reconnaissance vehicles—will be based in that garrison city. Two hundred million dollars will be spent on building simulation facilities over the next 10 years and 80 jobs will be created during the construction phase.
But not all important projects involve such big dollars. The Liberal-National government has helped and continues to help industry and community provide a better lifestyle and greater amenities for families living in the north. The federal government recently provided $150,000 to Mackay cane growers for their irrigation efficiency training program, which helps them reduce electricity costs and boost productivity in the cane-farming sector. We provided half a million dollars to Carlisle Adventist Christian College. I was just there on Sunday, yesterday, to provide them with a hospitality and home economics facility. Just on the weekend—as I said, yesterday—I opened new classrooms and a science lab for the school, to which the federal government directly contributed to the tune of $375,000. We delivered $15,000 for the Mackay kidney support group to buy a new car, when one of their previous cars was stolen, $15,000 for the Mackay Tennis Association to upgrade their courts and develop a new kitchen, and about $10,000 for the Mackay St Vincent de Paul Society to help them reduce their electricity costs, leaving them more dollars to support clients who are homeless. There has been about $200,000 invested in the Dalrymple disability respite service centre. All in all, there has been about $250,000 poured into community services around the Mackay region in just the past six months.
We supported VMR, the volunteer marine rescue, in Burdekin with $20,000 for their services. The Burdekin Art Society and Cungulla men's shed have also been recipients of funding. I secured $250,000 for Home Hill State High School's multipurpose hall. There's been a lot done for the community. We've helped the Mackay and Whitsunday region in their time of great need in the wake of Cyclone Debbie, with the federal and state governments providing joint tourism recovery funding, including $1 million for new infrastructure at Peter Faust Dam, $2 million for Hill Inlet lookout on Whitsunday Island and $1 million to enhance facilities at Flagstaff Hill in Bowen. There's more to come. This year's budget provides a number of measures that will benefit the north, including a $550 million Stronger Rural Health Strategy, which will deliver around 3,000 additional doctors and 3,000 additional nurses into rural general practice; an additional 14,000 high-level in-home-care packages to help older people remain in their own homes; 13½ thousand new residential aged-care places and 775 short-term restorative places, which will be made available where they are most needed. The chaplaincy program in our schools will get more funding to focus on antibullying, and we are skilling Australians by investing $1½ billion, an extra $250 million that we've provided in this budget, in the Skilling Australians Fund to deliver apprenticeships and traineeships that are so vital in training young Australians for the jobs of the future. We've enabled pensioners to earn more and keep more of their pension, and there are initiatives to address the need for more seasonal workers in the fruit and vegetable sector, with a two-year trial of incentives aimed at increasing the number of jobseekers who take on such work. I could go on about the sports infrastructure grants program and about the tax relief we've provided that's going to help over 66,000 taxpayers in the electorate of Dawson.
All of this stuff is contained in our budget. It's been a great budget for North Queensland, providing all these local benefits. I'm proud to support these bills.
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (18:27): I'm happy to get up here and support the appropriations bills Nos 1 and 2, one about parliamentary departments No.1, and Nos 5 and 6. Of course, Labor always support supply. The lessons of 1975 have not been lost on the Labor Party. It is important, though, for the contest over the budget to protect the nation state. We don't want to get into a situation like that in the United States of America where they have to come up with one deal after another simply to fund the public service, public servants and public service jobs. We don't want our nation beset with crises of that nature.
Nevertheless, this is going to be a debate about the government's budget strategy and, in particular, their ideas about corporate tax. We know that the government's budget basically backed in an idea which has no support in this country. It can't find support in the public sphere and it can't find support in this nation's parliament, particularly in the other place. That idea is $80 billion worth of corporate tax cuts, which are tax cuts the like of which Australia has never seen. We know when the Hawke-Keating government undertook taxation reform in the 1980s it involved a lowering of corporate tax rates, but it also involved a broadening of the base with things like the fringe benefits tax, capital gains tax and the petroleum resource rent tax. That was taxation reform. It involved spirited debate at the taxation summit and, as I think Mr Keating notably once said, they crossed the finish line with one wheel off the chariot.
Taxation reform is difficult. It's hard work. If you broaden the base, if you lower rates, that sort of reform is noted and lauded. Keating's reforms of the eighties were good all round, but this budget starts with a different idea, a Reaganesque idea: you just give $80 billion to companies and $17 billion to big banks, and somehow that idea, that great largesse, blows a hole in the nation's budget and blows a hole in its capacity to deliver services to schools, hospitals, aged-care homes and everything else that the federal government might fund and simply lowers the rate for companies, and somehow that will translate into a common good, a public good. That is nonsense. It's such nonsense that even in the United States of America, where this idea originated, it's starting to lose support.
In The Economist on 26 April, in the print edition, the headline read: 'Marco Rubio offers his Trump-crazed party a glint of hope. The Florida senator thinks that reheating Reaganomics is a dead end.' I encourage those opposite to read the article. It's not written by a socialist; it's in The Economist, so they would be safe in reading it. They might want to read Mr Rubio's quote in the article. It says:
"There is still a lot of thinking on the right that if big corporations are happy, they're going to take the money they're saving and reinvest it in American workers," he says—
quoting Mr Rubio—
"In fact they bought back shares, a few gave out bonuses; there’s no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker."
Think about this. Marco Rubio is on the conservative end of his party in the United States of America, the home of that sort of neoliberal idea—the Reaganomics—where, if you somehow lower the corporate tax rate, there will be a magical nirvana of higher wages and higher revenues, and somehow everything will work out in the never-never. In America, Senator Rubio puts a sword to that idea in the US Senate.
You would think that those opposite would just stop and think about what they're doing to their own political brand and what they're doing to this nation's capacity to fund schools and hospitals, pay down debt and encourage growth. We know the sort of corporate largesse. As I said before: $80 billion to corporations in the corporate tax cut and $17 billion to banks, despite all of the evidence to the royal commission—day after day after day of evidence of poor corporate ethics, bad corporate behaviour and one story after another, and now amazingly involving children's bank accounts. You would think there would be some underlying ethical boundary to bad behaviour, but clearly not. Every day, when we see these stories, we know it was the right call to have the royal commission, and we now see this government still wanting to shove $17 billion to Australian banks.
It's interesting. The other problem with this budget is that it has an assumption that you'll get reasonable wages growth in the coming years, but this of course does not match up with what this government's doing. On the one hand, the government say wages will grow, but we know that their policy is divorced from this. We know they're going to cut penalty rates. That's this government's policy: cut penalty rates and hack into workers. And we know they're going to get stuck into unions. They're the two basic tenets of this government's wages policy—surprise, surprise! On the one hand they want to do these things and on another they expect wages growth. On 17 May, The Sydney Morning Herald reported that wages growth was 'stuck in the mud'. It talked about how workers 'got a 0.5 per cent pay rise in the three months to March', which is 'the softest result in the history of the series'. It talked about how 1.3 million workers in the retail industry are banking an average pay rise of 1.5 per cent, which is actually a real wage cut of 0.4 per cent in real terms when compared to inflation. Think about the consequences of expecting your wages to go to one end and then having them go the other. Capital Economics' chief economist, Paul Dales, is quoting as saying wage growth is 'stuck in the mud at 2.1 per cent in the first quarter and likely to stay there or thereabouts' for the rest of the year.
But it wasn't just them. The Australian Financial Review on 17 May quotes deputy governor Guy Debelle. He's talking about what normally happens: the unemployment rate goes down and workers then have some capacity to ask for a pay rise. He says:
There is a risk that it may take a lower unemployment rate than we currently expect to generate a sustained move higher than the 2 per cent focal point evident in May wage outcomes today.
This is a problem for the old model—that is, where unemployment fell, workers would have more bargaining power and thus ask for a pay rise. We've got the deputy governor of the Reserve Bank here saying that that model might well be broken.
Why is it broken? I'll tell you why: because this government has set out to break it. This is why they are appointing Fair Work Commissioners who side with employers. This is why they are hacking into penalty rates. This is why they oppose increases to the minimum wage. This is why we have the very, very concerning series of charges brought against trade union officials for blackmail. That tactic went out with the 17th century. Of course, it's not surprising, when these charges are brought, to see that they don't survive the court process because it is not blackmail to ask for a pay rise or to get your union to ask for a pay rise. That's part of a healthy wages system.
So this government is wrong on tax and wrong on wages. It's not just the Labor Party saying so and not just a union saying so. The Reserve Bank of Australia and other economists are putting a pretty cogent case about wages. The Australia Institute is saying magical wage growth underpins the budget forecasts. You are not going to get magical wages growth if you are hacking into workers and unions every day. I'll tell you, Deputy Speaker, for your own information, you have to let workers and unions bargain. It's not criminal, either in civil law or criminal law, to have a strike to withdraw your labour; it's a standard right across industrialised economies, and it has been for some time.
So if those things are broken, then necessarily we are starting to question the government's approach to things like Newstart as well. Of course, the level of Newstart is a concern. It's a concern with ACOSS, Social Services and many people in my electorate, including the Anti Poverty Network, who take issue with it and have sent representatives to see me about it. It's also a concern with business. Jennifer Westacott was on Sky News, saying:
But we've got to make sure while they're on Newstart that it's adequate, that we're not entrenching them into disadvantage, that they've got the opportunity to get back into the workforce because they're able to maintain a reasonable standard of living. I mean $39 a day is not a lot of money, it's a very low amount of money for people to actually live on.
This is certainly the case. I've noticed many people in my electorate struggling on Newstart at the level that it's at, and also dealing with a regime of oversight that is very, very onerous. If you miss a simple appointment or if there's a mistake with your appointment with a job services provider, you can be cut and thrown into poverty and sometimes homelessness very quickly indeed. So we do have to be mindful in this place about just how difficult it is to live on Newstart and just how onerous a regime we are imposing on people who are on very low incomes, particularly if they have to sustain over a long period of time out of the labour market or are in and out of casual work or are in labour hire, which is the other big problem. We have to have be cognisant of that. When not only the Australian Council of Social Services is telling you it's not adequate but when business is also telling you it is not adequate, you know there is a case to be answered here.
I'm very proud that Labor has committed to reviewing the nature of these payments and I think we should review them with an eye to the adequacy of those payments and with a view to preventing people from falling into poverty. Once you have fallen into poverty, we know, it doesn't just affect your capacity to apply for work but there's also a fair bit of evidence to say that once you have fallen into those poverty traps, it's very hard to make the right judgements to get out of them. And it is very hard to live on very low incomes for a long period of time.
So this government's budget strategy, which Ayn Rand would be proud of, I don't think is very sensible or well thought out or reasonable in the modern era. We are saying to the government: you are going down the wrong path; you need to reconsider. The Labor Party won't follow you down this path so you should split the bills, allow us to do taxation reform for those who need it and, for those who don't—the big corporates—we should leave them to do what they should do, which is invest, create jobs and pay taxes like everyone else. We should get back to having a sustainable fiscal strategy which provides tax relief to those who need it, which pays down debt and which allows us as a nation to provide the services that we need now such as schools and hospitals and that we will need for the future.
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (18:42): I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019 cognate debate with Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2018-2019, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019, Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2017-2018 and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2017-2018, and to state, in case there was any doubt amongst honourable members, that this month's budget has been a great budget for Brisbane. More than 75,000 people across the electorate of Brisbane will be getting tax relief next financial year commencing in 40-something days' time, meaning the hardworking people of Brisbane will be keeping more of their own hard-earned money as reward for their efforts because this government's strong economic plan is starting to pay dividends.
A year ago, talking here on last year's budget, the topic was business tax cuts and we just heard that last year's budget still manages to distract members of the opposition. Last year, we talked about how this government was predicting what would happen if we backed Australian businesses, notably the small and medium family businesses which together make up such a large proportion of Australia's economy and its enterprise. We talked about why supporting those small and medium and family businesses might pay certain dividends. Now we are here seeing the very real evidence that the key planks of this government's strong economic plan are working—the tax relief already delivered for small and medium businesses, our innovation agenda, the new free trade agreements and the growth of our defence industry. We see evidence of these policies working certainly in Brisbane, right across Queensland and indeed across Australia.
Last week, two notable economic milestones were reached. Queensland's population reached five million and the target of one million jobs being created since the coalition government was elected was reached—about half a year earlier than was hoped for originally. The first milestone is a sign of the confidence Australians have in the great state of Queensland, including the 3.5 million who choose to make their homes in the south-east corner, centred on the wonderful place that is the City of Brisbane.
The second milestone, those jobs, is an unambiguous sign that the government's strong economic management is paying the dividends that we were talking about here in this place a year ago. A million jobs means a million livelihoods out there improved, a million more people having the security, dignity and prosperity of work. Record jobs being created, business investment rising, the budget strengthening is the story underpinning the budget.
Nationwide, our policies are coming together to help Australia's small and medium businesses create all of these new jobs faster than jobs have ever been created in the history of this country. Last year, a record 1,100 jobs a day were created, on average. That means, as I said, more Australians are being productive. It also means more Australians are paying taxes, and fewer of them are relying on welfare. That is a powerful outcome economically and morally. And it is enabling, in turn, this government to provide and guarantee the essential services. For instance, in the budget there is a record level of support for seniors and a record investment in the Great Barrier Reef. Finally, with certainty, it is enabling the government to fully fund the NDIS out of consolidated revenue.
This is all at the same time as being able to give tax relief to the Australians whose hard work and success have helped to bring this about. That is the real power of supporting Australia's small and medium businesses and it is the power of supporting hard-working Australians. The government's policies are fostering the conditions and the framework so that so many more Australians can prosper and so many more Australian businesses can grow and hire even more Australians. It is very good news for the 31,000 small businesses situated in my electorate of Brisbane. The feedback we received when the Treasurer visited Brisbane just last week, after the budget, was very positive. Local business people and local workers all clearly support the tax cut as fair and well targeted. The return to surplus next year was a very welcome improvement, as were the guarantees to the essential services that Australians rely on.
Nationwide, the government's income tax relief, as announced in the budget, will benefit 10 million Australians, including over two million Queenslanders. There couldn't be a bigger contrast with our opponents, whose shadow Treasurer, last week at the National Press Club, pledged to retain the top marginal tax rate at 49 per cent indefinitely. As usual, Labor's approach is all about high taxes, not lower taxes. I want to talk about infrastructure for a moment. Others have already noted here today that, in this budget, we deliver a record $75 billion in an investment pipeline in key infrastructure projects right across Australia. More than $20 billion of that infrastructure bonanza is for projects in Queensland, including in and around Brisbane.
I have previously welcomed in this place the $300 million the government is investing in the Brisbane Metro. That congestion-busting project is critical because of the strong population growth in Brisbane and the extra workers that brings into the Brisbane CBD, and because of the very high proportion of commuters in Brisbane that use buses rather than rail. It is a vital project to keep our city moving. It will cut daily travel times, reduce bus congestion in the CBD and improve bus services to the suburbs. For a daily commuter, it may mean over an hour of travel time saved each and every week—time that everyone would rather spend at home with their families and friends.
Last week, I was really pleased to join with the Brisbane Lord Mayor and the federal Minister for Infrastructure to inspect the site of the proposed underground metro station in Brisbane's cultural precinct. So, soon, there will be a world-class public transport project to accompany Brisbane's world-class cultural and entertainment offerings—QPAC, the Art Gallery, GoMA, the State Library and the Queensland Museum. In addition to the Brisbane Metro, the budget includes a whole raft of other infrastructure projects helping the people of Brisbane and south-east Queensland. It includes $1 billion to ease congestion on the M1 highway between Brisbane and the Gold Coast and a further $3.3 billion for additional upgrades along the Bruce Highway to improve safety and reduce congestion, taking the government's total investment to $10 billion and supporting around 2½ thousand jobs. These are all game-changing infrastructure projects that in various ways will improve the lives of millions of people who call south-east Queensland and Brisbane home.
The budget also continues the Turnbull government's strong commitment to supporting Australia's best health and medical research, including a record $6 billion in budget measures. In the same way that last year's budget really identified and singled in on the opportunities in our defence industry, this year's budget is really homing in and identifying the big opportunities that sit in front of Australia in the space of medical research. We have established the Medical Research Future Fund to provide long-term sustainable funding for medical research. It already has a balance of $7 billion and it's on track to reach $20 billion by 2021.
This budget includes $2 billion in disbursements from the Medical Research Future Fund to fund various research projects and priorities. Investment in medical research is critical to providing new treatments to diseases and to improving the quality of life of all Australians through things such as treating brain cancer in children, reducing premature births and developing new medical devices. It's all about improving and saving lives and it's part of our commitment to delivering the essential services that Australians rely on, guaranteed, as I said, by the strong economic plan that underpins our ability to guarantee the services.
Health and medical research is an area in which Australia is world class, and I'm proud that many of these amazing researchers are calling Brisbane home. Last week, it was really exciting to have the chance to visit the UQCCR with the Minister for Health, Greg Hunt. The minister announced $1.2 million in funding being awarded to UQ's Professor David Paterson through the Medical Research Future Fund. Professor Paterson's research is about tackling antimicrobial resistance and has the potential to save 30,000 lives, which puts the work that we do here in this place into some perspective.
I've also recently visited Queensland's largest medical research centre, the QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute. I've had the opportunity on many occasions visiting there to hear from some of the scientists and medical researchers there about their fascinating and very important work.
Australia has all of the necessary ingredients to bolster its position as a world leader in medical research, but it's essential that we don't rest on our laurels. In this budget, the centrepiece of the government's commitment to health and medical research is a new investment of $1.3 billion in the National Health and Medical Industry Growth Plan, to be overseen by Professor Ian Frazer, AC. It's about identifying discoveries and translating ideas into practice and commercial successes and it really has the potential to turbocharge the health and medical research industry just as the government's strategic investment in the defence industry sector in last year's budget is doing.
As well as improving health outcomes for hundreds of thousands of Australians, this will create up to 28,000 new skilled medical research jobs and develop the next generation of Australia's world-leading medical research industry. Groundbreaking biological and medical technologies have a significant place in the future of health care, and so this government's growth plan will also provide for a minimum of 130 new clinical trials and add a 50 per cent increase in exports and new markets in biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and medical devices. The growth plan includes half a billion dollars of funding over 10 years for the Genomics Health Futures Mission, which will help more than 200,000 Australians live longer and get better treatment tailored to their medical needs. The first genomics project will be Mackenzie's Mission, with almost $20 million being provided for screening trials for rare and debilitating birth disorders, including spinal muscular atrophy, fragile X and cystic fibrosis.
Another research investment is $248 million over five years for an expanded Rare Cancers, Rare Diseases And Unmet Need Program and new international clinical trial collaborations. We're also providing funding of almost a billion dollars a year to the National Health and Medical Research Council and have funded the $500 million Biomedical Translation Fund to help transform biomedical discoveries into commercial opportunities for Australian researchers.
That's just one aspect in summarising the plan for a stronger economy and what it means in one great area going forward for Brisbane and for all of Australia. But I did also want to mention in passing that the budget does include, contrary to some of the talk of cuts that we hear repeatedly from the other side, record funding for hospitals and schools, guaranteed funding for disability services and a comprehensive approach to aged care so older Australians can live healthier, more independent lives.
This budget ensures the government lives within its means, with a forecast return to moderate balance in 2019-20 increasing to a projected surplus of $11 billion in 2020-21. Importantly, we're no longer borrowing to pay for essential services and we have the lowest average real growth in payments of any government on either side of politics over the last 50 years.
I also wanted to mention quickly in passing that in my electorate of Brisbane more than 5,000 local families stand to benefit under the budget from our reforms to childcare. That'll come into place on 2 July and is obviously on top of their tax relief. There is also the guaranteed funding for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. That will be directly helping 1,800 people and their families in my electorate of Brisbane. This budget is the next step in our long-term economic plan to deliver all of those essential services on which we rely and to provide tax relief to hardworking Australians to thank them for the hard work that they and so many small and medium businesses have done over the last year in helping to get Australia back into this strong position while simultaneously living within our means.
I want to spend a moment comparing and contrasting what I've just outlined to some of the things that we've heard from those opposite. I want to spend a moment talking about the politics of envy and the case that Labor are now pushing, because it does seem that they have absolutely nothing else to talk about—certainly not a significant economic plan. I was in the chamber earlier and I heard the member for Lyons. He said one thing that was right; he identified that I was laughing—chuckling, I think, was the word he used—in response to his contribution. I was laughing because these are just discredited Labor lines that are being rolled out like robotic union Daleks. I think they hope that if they say them often enough they'll become true. His speech and so many other speeches that we're hearing from Labor reveal that they have no actual plan. At the heart of all of those uninspired Labor lines is this false war that they're trying to whip up, chasing the divisive politics of envy.
Sadly, we all had to endure the opposition leader's budget reply speech a few weeks ago. For those lucky enough not to hear it, let me summarise it briefly. Labor essentially said that they would spend a stack of money that they don't have on all manner of things. They said that they could pay for it because they'll tax banks and big companies more. That's essentially what they said. So, 10 points out of 10 for the politics of division and envy, but, sadly, zero points for adding things up and zero points for honesty. If you look at their numbers, you'll see that there are no changes in the forward estimates to the taxes being paid by big businesses and banks—not in our forward estimates and not in theirs. In their forward estimates over the next four years, the biggest tax takes include $10 billion from retirees, which is the biggest; $6 billion in additional taxes on small and medium businesses, the ones that we just identified as having created all of the jobs and prosperity over the last year; $2 billion from home owners; and precisely zero in additional taxes from big businesses and banks. That stands in stark contrast to the multinational tax avoidance laws that this government's passed—sadly, without Labor's support.
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (18:57): I would like to make a contribution in this cognate debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019 and other appropriations bills. There's probably one thing that we have learnt since the handing down of this budget by the Treasurer, and that is that it is only a Labor government that understands and knows about the delivery of fairness. Fairness is not about what you say or the words you might want to couch your budget in. Fairness is about what you do; it's all about actions. This government, once again, has failed that test. As a matter of fact, they've failed it five times.
This is their fifth attempt at a budget delivering so-called fairness to the Australian community, yet, despite the rhetoric of those opposite, this is really a budget about big business. We've heard in the past about trickle-down economics. We have heard that, provided we give it to the big end of town, it will eventually work its way down to the workers. We know that over the last couple of years businesses have been making reasonable profits, and yet we are seeing the lowest wage growth in living memory at the moment. They want to take this whole concept further—to say, 'Well, just trust us,' and, 'Let's make our key signature policy giving $80 billion to the big end of town in the hope that that's going to stimulate the economy and create jobs, and that everyone's going to live in a land of prosperity.'
After five years, I think the tired old government over there should be starting to think about giving it up. Let's face it: that's what the electors are thinking. The previous speaker might want to get bolshie about this, but he, like any of those on the other side of the parliament with margins under 5 per cent, knows what the polls mean. They know that people have turned off. They're no longer listening. It's one thing for the Liberals to want to come out and say that they're concerned about fairness and about returning fairness to the Australian economy and to working families. But to make your key signature policy all about big business is really not delivering much in the way of fairness for working families of this country.
In fairness, the tax plan does give a modest $10 a week to Australian workers. As I say, it's modest, and we will support such a modest increase. But don't forget that they're giving with one hand while, with the other hand, savagely making cuts to pensions, cuts to education and cuts to health. I'm not sure they can actually sell that at the election. I invite them to try! They've got to get out there and say, 'We'll give you something and we'll take all of this from you.' It simply is not going to work, because, as I say, people have turned off. They're no longer listening, despite the talk around the corridors here, and I know, regrettably, you guys don't get a bounce out of this. I'm not sure what that means—should you go to a longer period for elections, or which leader should you take to the election? All that is in the hands of you and your party room. But the realistic aspect about this is that a $10 tax cut for Australian workers does not cut it when you want to do things such as take $17 billion out of education and cut into health and pensions. People are aware of this stuff. This is not something new. They've seen this before. This is a government that is showing all the signs of being tired. It's out of ideas, and the only thing it can come up with is: 'Let's throw some money at big business.'
Bear in mind, this mob opposite is the same mob that protested vigorously about having a royal commission into the banking industry. They said, 'We know what's happening in our financial institutions. All the royal commission is going to do is make lawyers rich.' I'm not sure how the lawyers on the other side would take that. They said, 'It would only tell us what we know.' I really hope those opposite and those in the Treasury didn't know about all the things we now know about—things about AMP and what is occurring with the Dollarmites at the 'which bank'. All those things are happening. It's a far cry from what they wanted to do and say about a royal commission into trade unions—absolutely. They were looking at one prosecution as a result of the trade union royal commission, but I think that's been withdrawn now.
Mr Wallace: Only one? Only one, you reckon?
Mr HAYES: Only one flowed out of the royal commission, as my friend reminds me. But it took $78 million for that one. Anyway, we've lost the board of AMP. We have a financial system in debacle, a financial system which has been protected by those opposite, who withdrew the very protections we put in place for people so that financial advisers would act in the best interests of clients. One of the first actions of the government opposite was to withdraw that. What! These are the people who are now saying, 'We want you to trust us with our fifth budget because we are all about fairness for Australian people.' No wonder people are starting to think, 'When they talk about fairness, let's see what their track record is.' I've got to say it's pretty dismal.
Anyone in this joint must think that it is our absolute honour to be here. Very few people get to represent their community in the federal parliament. When you think in those terms, you must think the Australian people deserve better than what's being offered by this government. They deserve better than to be told that what's in your interests is to give the top end of town a lift at the expense of everybody else. A modest tax cut, if it's affordable, is the right thing to do. But you don't give with one hand and take with the other.
I have just one little piece of advice for those opposite: if you can't afford to give an $80 billion tax cut to business—and I accept that you can't—simply don't do it. You wouldn't do this in your household economy. You wouldn't say, 'Look, I'd like to buy that new car but I can't afford it so let's just add it to the mortgage.' If you can't afford it, don't do it. Don't do it at the expense of working families, at the expense of pensioners, and don't do it at the expense of all those people who put their blood, sweat and tears in, who are raising families and who want the best outcome for them. And by the way, we need that $80 billion for our future.
The cutting of $17 billion out of education is ridiculous. Any investment in education is not a line item. It's not something you just say, 'This is what we're doing in our budget, how we're going to save money.' An investment in education is an investment in our future. It's an investment in our prosperity. It's an investment in our nation. It's not just a line item in the 2018 budget. And $17 billion is almost exactly the amount of money the banks are going to get, a tax cut of $17 billion as a reward for their hard effort over the last 12 months. The royal commission will no doubt now discover more and more things. I know those opposite didn't want the royal commissioner to extend the terms of reference but they might be stuck with them now, because the Australian people are getting more and more concerned about what they're seeing is happening in their financial institutions. By the way, over the last period of 12 months, those banks made something in the vicinity of $34 billion in straight-out profit.
Ms Madeleine King: They need a tax cut!
Mr HAYES: They really need it, don't they? And you know what happened? Those workers in the financial institutions, well, jeez, they haven't done terribly well. They haven't increased their salaries. The executives may have actually got some bonuses. As a matter of fact, they did work some stuff with the Dollarmites, making sure those accounts were working so that people got a payout. A number of banks and financial institutions were signing off fraudulent statements on behalf of applicants at the NAB. Look, you guys opposite have got to start thinking there's more to being in government than trying to pull a job of smoke and mirrors, more than just pulling the wool over the eyes of people.
I'm very fortunate. I work in the most multicultural community in the whole of the country, bar none—very vibrant, very colourful. We have many, many opportunities to celebrate New Year from the start, with everyone else, on the 1st January, through to my last New Year's, celebrated in August or September with another group. Mine is not a rich community. The average income in my community is a tad over $60,000. I know what this budget means for them. I know what taking $14 a fortnight off pensioners means for those people. They're not going to go and work an extra shift. They are not going to work some overtime to make this up. The pension is all they get. Taking the $14 energy supplement off them at a time when the member for Hughes keeps reminding this House about energy prices. At a time when he wants to talk about record energy prices in New South Wales, he's part of a government that is going to take $14 off pensioners who can't go and make up that difference.
We need to be a bit smarter about this. We need to give people the opportunity to go out and invest in themselves and in their future. We did that in the global financial crisis. By the way, you never, ever hear a word about that from those opposite, but we came through that reasonably well, because we stimulated the economy. We did that by looking after families and encouraging them to invest in their futures. That is not what we're seeing coming out of this budget.
The mums and dads in my community are more concerned about what's happening in education. I preface this by saying that mine's not a rich electorate. As a matter of fact, I have the lion's share of refugees coming to this country, and many of the migrants make their home in the Fairfield and Liverpool areas. Interestingly, of the 12,000 refugees that the government decided to take, particularly out of the Middle East—and we supported them—we get 7,000 in Fairfield. Yes, there are all sorts of issues that come with that in terms of making sure those people are appropriately settled, which is fine, because I think we are a very giving community in my area. But what I've seen with the people from the Middle East or, before that, the people from Cambodia or, before that, the people from Vietnam is that they have a passionate belief in education. They believe that the ticket to success in a country like Australia is to ensure that their children have a first-class education, and they just cannot rationalise in their minds what this government is doing in taking $17 billion out of education. I know they all want to get up and say that's all just hyperbole over there. We have even got the Catholic bishops coming out today and reaffirming what this means in respect of Catholic education.
We are privileged to be in this place. We are privileged to have the honour of representing our communities in this parliament. Not many people get this opportunity. When we're here, we should be trying to make a difference for the better in our community, not simply rattle off some lines about how this is the budget and we're going to do all these various things. We should, on both sides of the House, be trying to make a difference for the better. Quite frankly, after five budgets, I just do not think those opposite have that view in mind. Perhaps they think this is their ticket to another election. I've got to say: guys, I think you're mistaken on that as well. But, if you're not in this House with a genuine commitment to make a difference for the better in the community, you should not be here.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (19:12): The Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019 and the other appropriation bills before us today demonstrate the stark choice which is going to face the people of Australia at the next election. It will be a choice between a Turnbull government which delivers sober reform and a strong economy, and an opposition that arrogantly parades its false and vacuous promises. It will be a choice between responsible government for all and naked self-interest. On this side of the House, we have delivered a million more jobs and record bulk-billing rates, and we're delivering $75 billion worth of infrastructure our nation desperately needs. On that side, they have kowtowed to law-breaking unions, shielded members who should never have taken a seat in this place, and tried to set Australians against each other in an outdated and divisive class war—wait, I've got more about that.
And why? Because on this side of the House we have real leaders who have shifted the debate on everything from stopping illegal immigration to fixing our declining school standards. The Leader of the Opposition, on the other hand—well, he's just shifty. Three years ago, the Heydon royal commission saw straight through this Leader of the Opposition. The commission's counsel assisting called him evasive on the witness stand, while the commissioner himself said that his non-responsive approach to giving evidence called into question his very credibility. Since that royal commission, we've had the question of this Leader of the Opposition's credibility settled once and for all: he has none. You simply can't trust a word he says. Sadly, to the detriment of this House and our nation's democracy, we have seen ample evidence of that over recent months.
There's no doubt that the Leader of the Opposition read the same court decisions as the rest of us when it came to the test for eligibility under section 44 of the Constitution. He knew what it meant as well as the rest of us. He knew that there was a two-stage test for those who held dual citizenship and that the 'all reasonable steps' that they parroted on about applied only when a foreign law operates irremediably to prevent an Australian citizen from renouncing his or her citizenship.
Ms Madeleine King interjecting—
Mr WALLACE: And they still can't accept the High Court's decision. He knew that the law was firmly established, just as the court has held in Sykes v Cleary and later reaffirmed in Re Canavan, delivered on the 27 October 2017. Yet for six months he misled the Australian public and dishonestly maintained that no fewer than four of his members of parliament were eligible to represent their local constituents when clearly they were not. Months of Labor parliamentary salaries and perks were paid out, while my colleagues on this side of the House in fact did the right thing and resigned or referred themselves to the High Court immediately.
Ms Madeleine King interjecting—
Mr WALLACE: He went further, of course. Famously, he gave no less than a 'rolled-gold' guarantee that all Labor members were eligible. The people of Australia and the unfortunate constituents of Fremantle, Braddon and Longman know what that guarantee was worth.
Ms Madeleine King interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hastie ): The member for Brand will cease interjecting.
Mr WALLACE: They know how much trust they can place in the Leader of the Opposition. But it's always been that way with him. What about the workers of CleanEvent when the Leader of the Opposition stripped away their pay and conditions while the AWU received secret payments of $75,000 for those arrangements? What about the workers at Chiquita Mushrooms when the Leader of the Opposition sold them out in return for secret $4,000-a-month training payments to his union? They quickly found out how much credibility he had as an advocate for the working people. And who could forget Labor's 'Mediscare' campaign in the 2016 election?
Even his own colleagues can't trust him. Former Prime Minister Rudd learned that the hard way. No doubt he trusted his then employment minister when that minister pretended to be a loyal cabinet colleague. As Mr Rudd soon discovered, trust in this Leader of the Opposition is often misplaced. No doubt the woman who replaced him, former Prime Minister Gillard, trusted the now Leader of the Opposition when he threw his support behind her. We all know how long that lasted. 'Up until the spill,' he told reporters, 'I was going to support the Prime Minister.' There you have it. The Leader of the Opposition was 'going to be loyal'. He was 'going to tell the truth', right up until the moment his self-interest changed his mind.
The workers he claims to represent, the people of Australia, his own closest colleagues—they all know that this Leader of the Opposition will do anything, say anything and doublecross anyone to claw his way to the top.
Mr Irons: Whatever it takes.
Mr WALLACE: Whatever it takes, and at what cost? We began to learn that back in 2013. In his desperate efforts to gain the then CFMEU's support, the Leader of the Opposition was once again ready to promise almost anything, to the detriment of his party and the Australian people. He agreed to the CFMEU's demands that he oppose any industry specific regulator, including the one he himself established in 2012. He agreed to oppose any form of building code, despite the clearly established need. He agreed to oppose any kind of compulsory evidence-gathering powers for a regulator in the building industry, despite the ever-mounting evidence, now proven, of staggeringly widespread union illegality. Having made his deal with the lawless construction union and linked his self-interest to theirs, it is difficult to know what representatives of the CFMMEU would have to do before the Leader of the Opposition would not stand next to them. Justice Geoffrey Flick said of them:
It is difficult, if not impossible, to envisage any worse conduct than that pursued by the CFMEU.
This is a union that has been fined almost $15 million, far more than has ever been seen before.
It's an organisation with around 70 officials personally before the courts. Its boss, John Setka, by the way, has been widely congratulated by those opposite for having blackmail charges dropped last week. Everyone knows it's not unusual at all for the DPP to drop charges in legal proceedings. What is unquestionable is that John Setka has been found guilty of 59 separate offences, including assault and theft, and was jailed twice, in fact, for contempt of court. He has even admitted that illegal activity is at the heart of the way he does business. Channelling ACTU secretary, Sally McManus, Mr Setka told Sky News last week, 'We get fantastic pay rises and good conditions for our members because we fight it outside the law.'
Even the Leader of the Opposition's own colleagues know how wrong and self-serving his continued support for the CFMMEU is. Labor's hero, former Prime Minister and ACTU boss, Bob Hawke, has called the construction union's behaviour appalling and said that he would not tolerate it. He told The Australian in 2016, 'I would throw them out,' just as he himself threw out its predecessor, the Builders Labourers Federation. Oh, for a Labor leader with some backbone today! Even Kevin Rudd has called for the CFMMEU to be expelled from affiliation with Labor, and for the influence of trade union factions in the party to be reduced. Even Peter Beattie said last week that he would refuse CFMMEU donations if he were the leader.
Yet there this Leader of the Opposition is, telling CFMMEU members at the Oaky Creek north mine site, where threats, including threats to rape children, and intimidation had been rife, 'The privilege for us today is to be in your company.' There he is, defending the CFMMEU day in, day out, just like his job depended on it. That's because it does—with $11 million in donations paid to Labor since 2001 and the factional support of its many active members, this Leader of the Opposition is owned lock, stock and barrel by the CFMMEU. The most sickening part of all of this is the fact that the Leader of the Opposition peddles his divisive, dishonest and exploitive envy mongering under the banner of a fair go. It's a cynical and nauseating distortion of what we all believe is at the heart of our uniquely Australian egalitarian way of life.
Where is the Leader of the Opposition's fair go when he is slugging senior Australians, who have worked and saved their whole lives, with a new multibillion-dollar retiree tax? Where is the fair go for 2.6 million Australians with APRA regulated superannuation accounts? What clever excuse is he going to give them when it comes time to explain why he has pillaged $3.75 billion from their hard earned savings? Where's the fair go for the millions of Australians whose jobs will be put at risk by the insatiable hunger of this Leader of the Opposition for more and more tax and his desire for the keys to the Lodge?
Even if what passes for a moderate version of Labor's tax plan were enacted, there would be 1.4 million Australian workers put at risk. There would still be thousands of businesses whose investment decisions had been undermined overnight. It would still mean many thousands of unemployed or underemployed Australians who would no longer have the opportunity to take up one of the new jobs created by our investment. What clever weasel words will the Leader of the Opposition use when it comes time to explain to our young people why there are no jobs for them? And where was the fair go for the workers at Clean Event or at Chiquita Mushrooms when their union secretary gave away their pay and conditions for his union's benefit?
Whether he's the secretary of the AWU or the Leader of the Opposition, he has only one guiding principle—that is, selling out the people he's meant to represent in the interest of his own. That's how he ran the AWU back then. It's how he's running the Labor Party today. It will be how he runs the country if he is ever allowed to occupy the Lodge. In the end, there is only one Australian the Leader of the Opposition is looking out for, and that is the Leader of the Opposition himself. There is only one standard to which he holds his words and his actions, and that is naked self-interest. His colleagues know that, those present here tonight know that, his supporters know that and the people of Australia know that. They have seen through the shifty Leader of the Opposition, and when they have the chance next year they will, as we should today, shun his empty politics of selfishness and division and support the Turnbull government's plan for a stronger, more prosperous Australia.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (19:26): The member for Fisher should stand on his feet and resign. That was the most appalling speech. This debate is about his government's budget, and these bills are about appropriations for the budget. Yet he engaged in a 14-minute tirade against the Leader of the Opposition. How pathetic he is. How pathetic is everyone on that side? Every question time, every chance they get, they slag off the Leader of the Opposition. What a bunch of cowards. This is your budget, and yet all you want to do is come in here and slag off the Leader of the Opposition. There's a metaphor they use in sport: play the ball, not the man. Perhaps everyone on the government benches needs to remember that. Play the ball and not the man. Be engaging on policy, that is what you should be doing as a government. This is about your budget. You would think they'd have some pride about what the government has put forward and be in here talking about their great vision. But, no, like a bunch of cowards they're going on the hack and are not standing up here. They can't even defend their Treasurer's budget. Just how useless are they? It is pathetic. If you're not in here to stand up and advocate for policy, if you're not in here to stand up and advocate for measures or your vision for this country, then resign. You have no business being an elected representative, and you have no business representing your communities.
The electorates of the member for Fisher and of the members on the Sunshine Coast are some of the poorest electorates that we have. It's so typical of the Liberal and National parties to forget the bush. It's so typical of them to come up here and completely forget the regions and not advocate for the regions. Some National Party held electorates and some Liberal Party held electorates are among the poorest electorates that we have. Yet what we are seeing from this government in these appropriations bills is cuts to the pension. They're actually cutting the pension. The age pension is well below the poverty line, but this government, this miserable mob of MPs who claim to represent the regions, is cutting the pension by $7 a week. I know it's not a lot to a millionaire, to someone who lives it up and who lives in a harbourside mansion. I know it's not a lot to those who may have 10 or 12 investment properties. I know it's not a lot to the silver spoons across the chamber from us. But it is a hell of a lot to a pensioner, to someone who is trying to survive on that fixed income. They say, 'We're just correcting the scrapping of the clean energy supplement, because there's no longer the carbon tax.' Something the government doesn't recognise is that—news flash!—energy bills have gone up under their watch. Under their great—I use exclamation marks—stewardship energy bills have gone through the roof. And now they want to cut the pension. They also want to lift the retirement age to 70. What an absolute disgrace. They are going to say to nurses, to cleaners, to builders: 'Keep working until you're 70.' They say it's because Australians are living longer. It's not about how long you can live. It's about your working age and how long you can work for. That's the problem with this government, and that is the problem with its proposals in this budget.
Another area that this government hasn't been honest about is the cuts to early childhood education. And what the government is doing—
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER (19:30): It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (19:30): I rise today to talk about the mismanagement by this government of the delivery of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Last week, we saw the Commonwealth Ombudsman's scathing report on the NDIS plan review system. Sadly, it is no surprise to me. Families are coming to my office every day, desperate for help. It is clear that we are reaching crisis point. People with disabilities and their families simply are not receiving the services and support they sorely need and—might I say—were promised. It is absolutely vital for this government to get on with the job of properly delivering the NDIS and fixing the broken plan review system.
It has been alarming to hear stories from people living in my electorate who are experiencing firsthand the poor delivery by this government of the NDIS. Michelle from Aldinga Beach has experienced frustration with long wait times and difficulty with the review process. She says her son's prosthetic legs and the 'stubbies' he needs to cushion his limbs when not wearing his prosthetics have been significantly underfunded in his plan. The family have asked for a review and have been waiting now for upwards of seven months with no end in sight. While the family wait for the outcome of the review, they have resorted to duct-taping their son's stubbies to try to stretch their use, as they are rapidly wearing out. This is absolutely unacceptable.
Mary from Morphett Vale is a single, low-income earner with a disabled son. She made a decision to cancel her private health because the supports for her son's first plan with the NDIS were working well. She did not take this decision lightly. Mary did not anticipate the lengthy wait times for a new plan. There have now been gaps in her son's funding, and Mary has been left to scramble, trying to cover the therapies her son so desperately needs. Mary says she feels frustrated and financially stretched beyond her limits. To acknowledge the delays, she was provided with interim funding to tide her family over. This funding has now been depleted, and her son is again without support, without a plan.
How is it possible, when we are talking about continuity of support and continuity of early intervention, that we have these families begging the government for some support? Mary has been told that her plan is in process. She has not been given a time frame for when her son's funding will start up again. This is causing her great distress and, without these supports, she has real concerns for his ability to maintain any progress that he's made. As I said, this is absolutely unacceptable.
Now I'll talk about Bonnie from Sheidow Park, who is also facing the anxiety caused by the lengthy wait times. This is especially distressing for the family, as Bonnie's younger daughter has a limited life span and is in palliative care. Bonnie says it took her daughter's social worker intervening for a planning date to be set. Bonnie said:
My Daughter has a limited life span. She has no access to treatment and is being ignored by the agency that is supposed to help us but in reality is just causing a huge amount of anxiety.
She says even basic administrative errors have been made. She has been told that some of these can't be fixed, including family members' names being misspelled in her daughter's plan. This clearly indicates a lack of resourcing of the NDIS by this government, and it is at the expense of Bonnie and her family.
The NDIS needs to support and value people with a disability as individuals, and this is what it was set up to do. But this government has been missing in action. Where has this government been when it comes to actually properly resourcing the NDIS? We've seen some very disturbing news in more recent days, where the government's plan is to cut off support to children with autism. That is its plan—not addressing these significant associated problems that are hurting families in my electorate.
The NDIS under Labor was designed to alleviate the anxiety of family members. It was meant to be a lifetime of support to stop ageing parents worrying about what will happen to their children when they are no longer there. All I can say from families in my electorate is that it's causing more anxiety, not less—anxiety on a daily basis about what will happen to their children next week rather than in a few years time. It is time the government dealt with these issues immediately. (Time expired)
Calare Electorate: Education
Mr GEE (Calare) (19:35): This evening I'd like to highlight to the House the critical importance of preschools and early education in our communities. The early years of a child's life can and do make all the difference in the way a child gains a sense of self, develops their skills and capabilities and learns how to happily interact with others. We shouldn't overlook the need to ensure that our children get a great first start.
There are some wonderful things happening in early childhood education in the Calare electorate, and I would like to bring to the attention of the House some examples this evening. Canowindra Pre-School Kindergarten has now been educating and caring for children in our community for 60 years. On the weekend they marked their diamond jubilee with a celebration, raising funds for a refurbishment and expansion that will help them grow into the next 60 years. Seventy families are currently enrolled, including children from Canowindra, Eugowra, Cudal and Cowra. I'd like this House to recognise the vibrant preschool community of Canowindra and the terrific work they do. This includes Director Liz Frances; teachers Naomi Dwight, Denise Fisher, Katie Kelly, Leanne Coady, Margie Dugurd; and the administrative work of Adelaide Lawrence.
The Cumnock Village Preschool continues to go from strength to strength. This year 38 children are enrolled, and they recently received a federal government stronger communities grant to transform their play space. I have to say the results are spectacular. I would like to acknowledge the terrific work of Director Sarah Evans; Administrative Assistant Sarah Haynes; educators Kristie Blair, Tracey Gosper, Renee Reid, Rachel Johnson and Irene Pottie; and all of the valuable volunteers and parents who help at Cumnock Village Pre-School.
As the former state member for Orange I helped secure $484,000 for Gulgong Pre-School. It had just one classroom and could only take about 20 children a day. The new work that they have undertaken is now complete and it is outstanding. It includes an extra classroom, which has almost doubled capacity to 36 children a day, with a commensurate increase in staff. I'd like to recognise Gulgong's wonderful staff, including Director Wendy Harris; teachers Rachel Clark, Amanda O'Brien and Samantha Seis; and also teaching assistants Karen Hampton, Michelle Gaudry, Sharron Lillewhyte, Linda Oakhill and Kirsty Simpson. Belinda Buckle and Cheryl Kreuzen also provide inclusion support for the preschool. Well done, Gulgong.
Lithgow's Jack and Jill Preschool teaches 120 students each and every week and is playing a big role nurturing the future generation of the area. I wish to acknowledge the wonderful efforts of Director Molly Hewitt; teachers Bianca Dean and Catherine Rivett, who do a wonderful job; and also Judy Houghton, who helps meet additional needs. As part of the Lithgow community school transition network, Jack and Jill Preschool provides a strong transition-to-school program and is now more affordable for more families. Well done to everyone at Jack and Jill.
I'd also like this House to recognise the Oberon Children's Centre, which is moving forward on all fronts by introducing a new preschool transitional program for three-year-olds and by continuing to improve the physical amenities for the development of these children. Each week, the Oberon Children's Centre draws five dozen four- to five-year-olds from Oberon and its surrounding districts. Each day, Director Meredith Cameron and teaching assistants Janice Brennan and Kerri Stewart lead these children on their journeys of learning, discovery and creativity. I should point out that they've just won their class in Oberon Council's waste-to-art program and will progress to exhibit their work in the regional finals in Narromine later this year.
Our families, our communities and our nation benefit enormously from our early educators and their dedication to and care for our children and their development. That's why it's so important that we acknowledge and also support the great work that happens in our preschools and early learning environments. When we speak of education, we often talk of schools and high schools, which are no doubt vitally important, but we shouldn't overlook the early education sector and the valuable work they do for our communities and our families. I know that all members will join with me in recognising and thanking them tonight.
Eden-Monaro Electorate: Bushfires
Dr MIKE KELLY (Eden-Monaro) (19:40): I would like to take this opportunity to update the House on the situation in regard to the Tathra fires, the great tragedy that occurred on the South Coast in my electorate just recently, which was well publicised. Firstly, I would like to thank again the relevant ministers and the government for the assistance—and the Prime Minister for coming down to highlight the situation, and also the Leader of the Opposition. It really helped us to spur the fundraising arrangements. Certainly, that publicity has led to an extremely successful federal mayors relief appeal, which has been applied very well to the circumstances of people who had either no insurance coverage or inadequate insurance coverage. That has been very gratefully received. The people of the Tathra community and the Bega Valley Shire want to express their gratitude to all those who have donated so generously to the cause.
I was at a meeting last week with the mayor, the recovery officer, Euan Ferguson, and the general manager of the shire, Leanne Barnes. Things have gone extremely well. I am also grateful in that context for the state government's donation of $10 million to remediate the asbestos situation we had there. Many of those houses were of that vintage that had serious asbestos issues. There was quite a lot of asbestos rubble. That $10 million was well received. That clean-up effort is well and truly underway. It is being handled in accordance with sound and proper handling practices for asbestos.
The progression in terms of getting reconstruction happening quickly is going to be able to go ahead well. In particular, the insurance companies have been very cooperative and very well organised in this situation, I'm really pleased to say. We didn't have such a great situation in relation to the floods that we had a few years ago in Queanbeyan and Captains Flat, where there was a lot of debate over the interpretation of what a flood was, which led to some grief in terms of getting issues dealt with. But the insurance companies this time have been very well organised. They reached out to me up-front. We coordinated and talked about how to respond. A facility was set up in the council chambers down in Bega, and all the insurance companies did a great job of processing those claims in a very rapid manner. Well done to all those organisations who helped our citizens in their hour of need.
Very creative were a lot of the means by which we have responded to the crisis in terms of fundraising. There will be a benefit concert this Saturday night, which is sold out. The Hoodoo Gurus are coming along. This is going to raise a significant amount of money as well. This is a wonderful community that is deserving of the support. They are a very resilient and supportive community. We were so blessed that, even though we lost 70-odd homes and many others were damaged, we didn't lose a single life to this situation. And that was mainly down to the community. Everything broke down. The radio wasn't working properly and the telecommunications went down straightaway because it was the power lines that caused the fire. That community just looked after itself by driving around and doorknocking and getting the word out, so everybody was evacuated effectively. It was really wonderful to see them rally around each other like that. There was no system or rehearsal of any of that, so they did a wonderful job. Given the particular risks of that situation, with just two roads out of the Tathra area, it needed to be handled well. We were blessed that we had no loss of life.
In addition to that, this is a community that is really passionate about the whole climate change issue. Tathra was the birthplace of the 'Clean Energy for Eternity' movement. They rallied together to create their own solar farm. They built that solar farm to spell out the word 'Imagine'. When you drive into town, you see a big water tower which is emblazoned with the motto '50/50 by 2020', which is their ambition for a reduction of emissions and a transition to renewable energy. Ironically, they were in the front line of those exacerbated extreme conditions we are seeing with climate change on those days. It was a horrendous perfect storm of intense temperatures and high winds. The circumstances were dire and threatened the entire town. Fortunately, key infrastructure was preserved. I really want to thank the community, which has responded by coming back to Tathra and using the tourism facilities. It is a wonderful place to take a holiday. I continue to urge people to do that; that is the one thing I would like to see most of all. Come and see the people in Tathra and enjoy the benefits of a wonderful community. Thank you for your support.
Petrie Electorate: End of Financial Year Boot Camp
Petrie Electorate: Community Organisations
Petrie Electorate: Roads
Petrie Electorate: Kindergartens
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (19:45): I want to talk to those people in my electorate that want to know a little bit more about finances. On 7 June, I'm having my end of financial year boot camp because I feel that often a lot of school students don't get taught a lot about finances and how to manage and invest money. So I'm going to go to the people in my electorate that have been successful in those areas. They may talk to you about superannuation. They may talk to you about tax rates. They may talk to you about property investment, whether it's positively geared property or negatively geared property. They'll also talk to you about shares. I'll have people there from the electorate that will be able to talk to you if you're 15 or above. Parents, bring your son or daughter along, and you can come along as well. We'll have experts there at the end of financial year boot camp, which will be held at the North Lakes Hotel on 7 June, from 7 pm to 8.30. It's a really good opportunity to come along and learn something new, so please get along.
I also want to talk a little bit about the Brisbane City Council side of my electorate. We've been investing heavily in that area in infrastructure, as well as sporting groups and local community groups. I want to thank the hardworking people in those suburbs for what they do as well—the people down at the Bridgeman Downs area of my electorate who are employing people, and the men at the men's shed that have been involved with my Green Army projects in the past, making different cut-outs and things for that.
The government has been investing in sporting clubs in that area, because we know that a healthy, active society is great for taxpayers because we have less to spend on the health budget—even though we're investing more heavily in that area each year as well. At the Aspley Devils Rugby League Football Club, we've installed a new water-harvesting system. They were spending $20,000 a year on water, and now they're catching all of the water off their roof thanks to the federal government investing there. We're investing in the Aspley Hornets AFL club. Despite being in Queensland, they're the biggest junior AFL club in the country. We've put in $540,000 to upgrade their fields, put in a new women's change room, and add disability access and new coach's box. We've also got the Aspley Memorial Bowls Club solar for their roof and, more recently, a grant to ensure that shade covers are put over one of their greens. I want to thank them for their contribution in fighting so hard for that at Aspley Bowls.
We have seen Bracken Ridge Little Athletics with their new lighting. At the Bracken Ridge Swimming Club, a new change room and toilet are about to be built. I remember that club when I grew up in Bracken Ridge some 30 years ago. They've still got the same change room now, so I'm looking forward to seeing that. The Bracken Ridge District Cricket Club will get new nets.
We also have the Bald Hills Memorial Hall, an iconic hall that was built after World War I and was heavily damaged by fire. This year on Anzac Day, it was reopened after the federal government invested $165,000. I want to thank the memorial committee for the great job that they do and for fighting so hard for that as well. We have investments in the Bracken Ridge Scout Hall and the Bald Hills Scout Hall, with solar panels on their roofs, cutting their power bill.
We've also got massive investment in infrastructure, with $1 billion on the Gateway Motorway, which will hopefully be finished at the end of this year. I know there's a lot of work to do, but it should be finished. In this year's budget we've seen $390 million in rail for Sunshine Coast rail to help the people in North Lakes and so forth by getting more people heading to Brisbane off the freight line and on to passenger rail. Telegraph Road has been completed, and BCC—Brisbane City Council—is doing a bit more work there. That was funded with federal government black spots funding.
I'm also fighting for Linkfield Road, because we know that the state Labor government are going to whack another 2,000 people into the Carseldine Urban Village, and they're not spending anything on infrastructure. So I've written to the state Labor minister to say: 'Make sure you upgrade Linkfield Road. We need Linkfield Road upgraded urgently. Don't go whacking 2,000 more people into Carseldine without investing in infrastructure.' So I'm calling on the state Labor government to do that and to fund the off ramps at Griffin and Murrumba Downs. The member for Dickson and I have just whacked $120 million in there. We need another $30 million from the state member for Murrumba. That should be in the budget as well.
Kindergartens aren't forgotten. I've been looking after kindergartens in the local area, and I want to thank all of the kindergarten staff for the work that they do in reading and teaching those early kids before they go to preschool and then on to prep.
I just wanted to touch upon and talk to the people in the Brisbane City Council. We haven't forgotten you. I, as your federal member for Petrie, am fighting for you every day. We can only do this because of our 'jobs and growth' mantra. We're actually delivering new jobs, which is delivering record investment in taxes and helping the taxpayer.
Live Animal Exports
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (19:50): Amongst the headline issues my electorate office deals with on a daily basis—constituent problems with Centrelink, complaints about the NBN, complex case management for NDIS clients—it is notable that in the past few weeks I've received close to 1,000 representations from local Greenway residents by email, phone and in person regarding the latest reports of systemic abuse in the live animal trade for sheep. On 8 April, 60 Minutes aired footage of the conditions on board an export ship bound for the Middle East in August 2017. During this voyage, approximately 2,400 sheep died of heat stress. The cruelty and mistreatment of livestock in this way is a disgrace. It is a disservice to the proud farmers who reared them and to a civilised nation where animal law is becoming more widely recognised as a branch in its own right.
I have long advocated for an end to the live-sheep export trade, with a sensible transition that builds up our domestic meat markets, including frozen and chilled export production. It is clear that many Australians also believe this trade should end. The latest representations I have received from local residents are in addition to the thousands more I have received prior. After several reviews over many years, it is now clear that this industry is unsustainable and that its practices have not improved to an acceptable level. The prospect of achieving such an acceptable level is remote—a prospect supported by scientific expertise. As my constituents have also rightly pointed out, I find it impossible to believe that these latest reports of cruelty to sheep on these ships of shame will be the last. It is for this reason that Labor has announced that we will end live-sheep exports and support the industry to transition. In addition, Labor will end the summer export trade at the first opportunity.
One of the most frustrating aspects of the latest reports is that they are neither new nor isolated. Instances of animal cruelty are systemic, despite some improvements in processes, which unfortunately have been undermined by the current government. It is therefore no surprise to me that many of my constituents have little confidence in the current system, and I share the cynicism felt by many people that it's only a matter of time before more abuses are reported. Unfortunately, the likely reality is that many more instances will go unreported.
I welcome the department of agriculture's decision to suspend live exports to Qatar in response to these damning reports. In the short term, the recent reports highlight the need for the implementation of an inspector-general for animal welfare, an independent body that enshrines the protection of animal rights. I believe that this is the most appropriate way to begin the transition away from live exports. I will continue to advocate for an independent office of animal welfare to ensure that such animal abuse is stopped.
The Turnbull government's confirmation that it will not further act in a meaningful way is disappointing but, unfortunately, expected, as evidenced by the Prime Minister's comments in question time today. It's clear the northern summer sheep trade and animal welfare expectations cannot be reconciled. No matter what the standards or stocking densities, sheep will continue to suffer in the searing heat. Even the industry itself has admitted animal welfare standards cannot be assured and that it cannot guarantee there won't be more incidents akin to those seen in the most recent footage.
The transition needs to begin now to ensure that we build up our frozen and chilled meat export sector. It is important that we continue to support Australian farmers during this process to ensure we can build a sustainable and humane meat-processing sector onshore. We will work with farmers to ensure these higher standards are implemented during the transition period and, in doing so, create a framework to support Australian sheep farmers to be successful and sustainable into the future. We know there are parts of the industry that also support a transition plan. It's time to get this done. This won't happen overnight. It will happen over time, but must happen because it's the right thing to do, including in an economic sense.
I end by noting that the suburb of Riverstone in Greenway was once home to a meatworks, established in 1878, which at one time reportedly processed an average of 2,000 sheep daily. It was expanded to include freezing facilities, a cannery and sheepskin treatment. In the 1970s, the construction of a new meatworks saw Riverstone home to one of the most advanced meat processing plants of its time, employing over 2,000 people. By the early 1990s it was all gone. It's notable now that a region where meat processing was once so integral is now so vocal in its opposition to a trade that undermines that domestic industry and jobs.
Page Electorate: Constituents
Mr HOGAN (Page—Deputy Speaker) (19:55): I'd like to congratulation Casino's Karri Williams, who has just been named the Indigenous trainee of the year at the 2018 Hunter Valley Training Company Excellence Awards. Karri is 19 years old, a dental assistant trainee with the Northern New South Wales Local Health District Oral Health Services and has completed her traineeship at the Casino Aboriginal Medical Service over the past year. Karri is one of a number of local Indigenous trainees who are supported by a partnership between the Bulgarr Ngaru Medical Aboriginal Corporation and the Northern New South Wales Local Health District Oral Health Services. This partnership has helped Karri to complete her training in her hometown of Casino through the dental assistant trainee program. Again, congratulations to Karri for such a wonderful achievement. We are all very proud of you.
I'd like to congratulation students from Trinity Catholic College in Lismore, who recently raised $5,000 for motor neurone disease research. Special thanks to those who organised what they called a 'colour run' to raise the funds: Trinity's Dennis and D'Arcy house captains, Morley Cromwell, Cooper Manning, Jia McLaren Hedwards and Toby Wongkruth. During the colour run, runners were deluged by chalk dust as they ran the three kilometre course, creating a vibrant display of colour, fun and enthusiasm. The students were inspired to raise the money for motor neurone disease research by former teacher Bob Delaney, who the school's Delaney's Cup is named after. Bob passed away in 2010 after being diagnosed five years earlier. Former parents and friends of the college have also been affected. Bob's daughter, Katyana, who is now teaching at the school, was on hand to officially start the run. Well done to Trinity Catholic College.
Last week, the Lismore TAFE campus held its awards of excellence evening. It was a pleasure for Karen and I to share the night with the award winners. I would like to congratulate Cornelia Adam-Armfield, who won an award for outstanding commitment to learning; Claire Bryant, the certificate III business administration trainee of the year; Ishka Folkwell, the screen and media student of the year; Kussi Saville, the design student of the year; Anna-Marie Wallace, the visual arts student of the year; Jali Hawkins, the information, digital media and technology student of the year; Jackylyn Pulley, who won the Robyn Butler Memorial Award; and George Johnson, who won Monty's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander student of the year.
The awards in the community services category went to Krystal Cottam and Johny Dawson. The business category recipients were Breeanna Wilson, Michelle Stone, Shane McBurney, Amber Russo, Zackary Simmons, Shianne Ford and Rene Schulze. The screen and media winners were Andrew Bird, Dean Burge and Jy Paterson. Gem-Alita Moxham won two awards, one in the creative industries category and the other in the education, employment and support category. In the category of creative industries art, awards went to Chloe Smith-McGrory, Terrianne Ross, Michaela King, Darel Bonanno, Liana Simpson, Pamela Murray and Rebecca Davies. In the early childhood education and care category, the recipient was Gypsy Clarke. The information technology recipient was Tyson Tunsted.
In the education, employment and support category, awards were received by Che Askew-Smith, Katie Coughlan and Ruqiong Wu. The retail and personal services pharmacy winners were Mikaylah Trew, Emma Mustard, Karen Lynch, Alma Lee Eyles and Benjamin De Vellis. The health, aged care and nursing category winners were John West, Angela Mitchell, Lauren Johnson, Megan McGuinness, Sarah Parrish, Megan Perren, Tessa Walker and Monique White. Jamica Owens took out the award in the tourism, events, aviation, cooking and hospitality category. I congratulate all of the recipients and wish them all the best, and congratulate the teachers, who do such a great job.
The SPEAKER: It being 8 pm, the House stands adjourned.
House adjourned at 20 : 00
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Dr Leigh to move:
That this House:
(1) declares that:
(a) given new cars have multiple onboard computers, real time access to digital files and codes—which vary from car to car—are needed to complete many aspects of a repair or service;
(b) car manufacturers generally own and control this technical information and in many cases are the only sources of re-initialisation codes and software upgrades;
(c) independent car repairers—who comprise the vast majority of Australian mechanics—are at a competitive disadvantage, since most car manufacturers do not supply the same information to independent mechanics that they provide to authorised dealers;
(d) the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's New car retailing industrymarket study report (14 December 2017) concluded that the industry's voluntary code has failed to address the problem;
(e) failure to address this problem is hurting small businesses, increasing prices for consumers, and providing less choice, with the impact being most acute in regional areas; and
(2) calls on the Government to adopt Labor's policy of mandatory information sharing, which would:
(a) require car manufacturers to share technical information with independent mechanics on commercially fair and reasonable terms;
(b) create safeguards that enable environmental, safety and security related technical information to be shared with the independent sector; and
(c) provide a level playing field, benefiting consumers and independent mechanics alike.
Ms Collins to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) there are almost 300 older Australians who have waited more than two years for their approved home care package, without any care;
(b) a further 636 older Australians have waited more than a year for care and they currently have no care at all and there are thousands more getting less care than they need;
(c) the latest waiting list for home care packages indicates that more than 100,000 older Australians are waiting for the package they have been approved for; and
(d) the latest figures show that the waiting list grew by more than 20,000 between 1 July and December 2017 and it is likely to continue growing without funding for the release of more packages;
(2) recognises the Government's response in its budget of 14,000 home care packages is woefully inadequate;
(3) condemns the Government for the aged care crisis it has made on its watch; and
(4) calls on the Government to immediately invest in fixing the home care package waiting list and properly address this growing crisis.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ) took the chair at 10:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Moreton Electorate
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (10:30): Since we were last in Canberra I've been walking and talking my way around the southside. I walked nearly 70 kilometres in six days around my electorate of Moreton. I walked from Eight Mile Plains to Sunnybank, Tarragindi to Salisbury, Moorooka to Acacia Ridge, Yeronga to Moorooka, Tennyson to Oxley, and Kuraby to Sunnybank, with a few other suburbs in between. I enjoyed meeting the people who don't often get the time to drop into their MP's office, the neighbours who are busy with their own lives and their families, those who are busy looking after others. Although I love walking, the purpose was to encourage locals to better engage with their community.
My Say G'day in May walk was inspired by the work of the late Jo Cox. Jo was a member of the United Kingdom parliament who worked tirelessly in her community to combat what she considered to be a growing epidemic: loneliness. We often think of loneliness as affecting the elderly, and it does, but it also affects every age demographic, and it is often in times of life transition that loneliness can strike. It can happen at times like leaving school or leaving home for the first time, becoming a parent or moving into retirement. The aim of my Say G'day in May campaign was to encourage people in my electorate to engage with and join their community groups. So I asked locals to come and meet me and walk with me or to meet me for a coffee along the way or to come and check out a local community group, and they did.
I had some great company for my walks—locals like Anna, Reeta and Eric, who joined me for my walk from Tarragindi to Salisbury, and Midhat, who walked with me from Kuraby to Sunnybank, to name just a few. In fact, the Heart Foundation's CEO, Stephen Vines, joined me with part of his local walking group—Marion, Margaret and Billy—on the beautiful walk around the Corso at Yeronga. I stopped along the way to learn a few dance moves—very badly—from local dance groups at the Queensland Taiwan Centre in Sunnybank and at the Salisbury & District Senior Citizens Centre. I got a few practical and much-needed handyman tips from some men's sheds. I dropped into some art classes at Atelier Art Classes in Salisbury and Half Dozen Group of Artists in Sherwood. I was even tempted to try my hand at mahjong at the Cathay Community Association with a 96-year-old opponent. I marvelled at the wonderful people who spend their days caring for others, like the Westside Community Services, St David's Neighbourhood Centre, Cathay Community Association, Yeronga Community Plus, Braille House, Deaf Services Queensland and Cerebral Palsy League. And I thoroughly enjoyed reading to the class at Yeronga's Hyde Road kindy.
It's been a great experience. I've seen a lot, I've heard from many and I've learnt heaps, but the Say G'day in May campaign is not over yet. This Friday, 25 May, I'm hosting a community groups showcase at the Wellers Hill Bowls Club between 10 am and 12 noon. I've asked local community groups to come along and showcase what they do, where they do it and when they meet. Thirty community groups will be on show, so I've asked everyone in Moreton to come along. They're invited to come and meet these community groups to say g'day to their neighbours in May. (Time expired)
Goldstein Electorate: Community Events
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (10:33): Last week we hosted one of our regular Goldstein community morning teas. These gatherings are an important opportunity to honour those who contribute to our local community and to welcome those who are new to the wonderful electorate of Goldstein. We've always had a forward-looking, modern, liberal community that values strong social bonds that strengthen our civil society. So it was a wonderful opportunity to acknowledge those people who have done the hard yards locally.
We were joined by finalists of the Anzac poetry competition, swimming champions from McKinnon Primary School, as well as new members of our community, Karen and Fabian Vice. Congratulations to the winners of the Anzac Day poetry competition, Dewi Millie and runner-up Alexandra Lily Symes. We also had a chance to acknowledge the Anzac competition finalists: Helena Perkins, Ronny Seoud, Sophia James and Imogen Jackett-Simpson. Thank you to John Douglas, Ray Dunstan, Roger Hyde OAM and John Basarin AO for acting as judges for this important competition.
It was also a pleasure to meet Hannah Black and her parents, Suzie and Rob. Hannah is a year 8 student at Brighton Secondary School who has developed a fully functional bionic hand. I don't know about you, Deputy Speaker, but I hadn't achieved that when I was in high school. She makes me feel somewhat inadequate, and like I have some performance issues, compared to her capacity to do something so incredible at such a young age.
I also met Bobby Quadara and Chris Salvage, who were also in attendance. Bobby and Chris were representing Bayside Hockey Club, which recently raised nearly $2,000 in support of Bayley House, a local disability support charity for people with a disability, including people with Down syndrome. Their hockey club is looking forward to establishing an all-abilities hockey program at Bayley House. We had the opportunity to congratulate Carmelle Schachna for winning the Haileybury chess competition.
I lastly welcomed a group of district swimming champions from McKinnon Primary School, as well as their principal, Simone Eirth. Congratulations to Koharu Nishikawa, Rosie O'Brien, Daniel Sidur, Sam Chilco-Burns, Toby James, Bevis Han Li and Mia Kam. Thanks also to all the other guests and, of course, the Goldstein electorate the staff who helped bring it together.
We also recently had the Mother's Day high tea at Black Rock House in honour of Mother's Day on Sunday, 13 May. What better way to celebrate such an occasion than at Black Rock House. We were delighted with tea, coffee, sandwiches, cakes and everything else. I resisted temptation and stuck to the tea, but Black Rock House is a charming reminder of the value of conservation and preservation in the Goldstein community. It offers a unique view into the 19th century Victorian era. Thank you to the volunteer committee for this year, who brought all the activities at Black Rock House together: the president, Carolyn Brown; the minute secretary, Sandra Collins; the treasurer, Debbie Gruneklee; Gudrun Gawantka; Jayne Richardson; Eryl Harris; Tracey Scharenguivel and Leanne Geothel.
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (10:36): My community newsletter, The Bulletin, has been hitting letterboxes in Canberra across the last two weeks. On the front page is a story about the NDIS forum that I hosted in March with the shadow minister for disability and carers. That forum was held in response to my office being inundated with distressed parents, families and friends who are dealing with the NDIS and the NDIA, particularly over the summer break. Now, since the forum, I've heard from more families who are frustrated with the current system. Some of them are at their wit's end and just looking for someone, anyone, to help them navigate the NDIS.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman has handed down a damning report describing the NDIA's review processes as 'unwieldy', 'unapproachable' and lacking 'fairness and transparency'. The ombudsman is not wrong. The ombudsman's findings were based on reports from the 400 complaints it received. These reports were that the NDIA did not prioritise urgent cases where people could at risk of harm or homelessness, NDIA staff and contractors discouraged people from seeking review and the NDIA did not respond to requests for reviews or respond to inquiries.
These are the same experiences that Canberrans have contacted me about. These are the same experiences I have shared with the Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services. What was the government's response? Well, the Minister for Social Services responded to the ombudsman's report, saying:
This was something that was identified some months ago and special teams have been put in place to address this issue.
These issues were apparently identified some months ago. Why then has it taken an investigation by the ombudsman for the minister and the department to do something about the number of outstanding reviews? What exactly are these special teams doing, and what are they achieving? Let's hope these special teams have more effect than the stern letter that the minister issued in his previous cybersecurity role to improve the cyber resilience of government agencies.
As if NDIS participants and their families aren't doing it tough enough already, just imagine the disappointment, the anger and the frustration caused by the article in The Australian over the weekend detailing the NDIA's plans to restrict access to funding support for people with autism. The NDIA had released updated guidelines for assessing prequalifying conditions for access to the NDIS. The public backlash made the NDIA take down the guidelines, declaring them to be incorrect; but the damage is done. The NDIA has since updated the guidelines were genuine. It is absolutely appalling. (Time expired)
Bonner Electorate: Bonner Volunteer Awards
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (10:39): It's volunteer week, and another good opportunity to recognise the outstanding contribution our volunteers make to our community.
Last year, I had the opportunity to do just that with the first annual Bonner Volunteer Awards. There were many worthy winners, and so many make such a difference in our community. These include Beryl Acton. Beryl has been running sewing workshops and classes at St Bart's Anglican Church at Mount Gravatt for the past few years. She also offers to do free mending and alteration work for the Hope Chicks, who provide work for vulnerable and disadvantaged women. The Chicks love her sweetness, patience and cheerfulness. She genuinely loves the women and doesn't ever lecture or judge. She pops in from time to time, regardless of sewing workshops, just to see how everyone is going.
Then there's John Bettenay. John has been a member of several Queensland Rotary clubs since 1975, and has held various executive committee positions at both club and district levels. He joined the Rotary club of Mount Gravatt in 1996 and has been an active member of the club and its activities in the local area since that time. He has hosted international exchange students, been a member of the board of directors, is current Treasurer for the Mount Gravatt club—a position which he has held for many years—and always supports the club's regular fundraising efforts.
I'm pleased, again, to be holding the Bonner Volunteer Awards this year. There were four categories this year: youth, adult, senior and group organisations. Nominations have just closed. There are a number of outstanding candidates, and it's been difficult to pick just one winner in each category. I will be holding a presentation ceremony soon. I look forward to meeting the winners and thanking them for the very important service they provide to the community. I also look forward to updating the chamber on these volunteers and sharing their vital contributions to the community.
Kingston Electorate: Urban Services
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (10:41): Having three levels of government in this country has been important in providing a lot of local services, but it can also be very confusing for local residents. That's why I have taken it upon myself, as a local community advocate, to make sure that no matter what level of government a local resident needs advocacy for, I will take that cause up for them.
One of the issues I've been fighting for locally is to see that our local council increases green waste collection from monthly to fortnightly. Currently, the City of Onkaparinga is the only council in metropolitan Adelaide that does not collect green bins fortnightly. I do believe this is unacceptable. Why does our local community deserve a lower service and standard than other council areas? I've been increasingly concerned about this issue, so last year I began an online petition to gauge the impact this was having on residents. I was overwhelmed, and quickly had more than a thousand signatures calling for fortnightly green waste collection.
Looking through the results, I noticed that respondents raised a number of important points. As one person put it, 'Especially when we have larger block sizes in Onkaparinga than in a lot of other local councils, we desperately need extra green bin collections.' Suburbs like Aberfoyle Park, Woodcroft, Flagstaff Hill, Onkaparinga Hills and many others are very leafy suburbs. They're covered by beautiful, large trees, and residents take pride in the presentation of their suburbs. The council encourages residents to have presentable properties, and most residents want to tidy their front and back gardens, but one green bin collection a month is completely inadequate to clear leafy blocks of this size.
I'm also concerned about the potential safety risks. Residents raised issues, like fire hazard, snake, vermin and allergic reactions to grass clippings. One resident said: 'At this point, I've decided that if I mow the lawn to avoid the risk of snakes, or put my clippings in the corner of the garden, leaving them to dry, they become a fire hazard. As mother of a two-year-old, who now enjoys playing outside, neither of these I'm willing to risk.
There were many other concerns raised, but consistent among responses was the frustration and confusion as to why other councils in Adelaide collected green bins fortnightly. As one respondent put it: 'Every other council does fortnightly collections, I don't see why our council cannot. I pay enough rates to warrant this.' This is what it really comes down to. I think it is important that the City of Onkaparinga starts listening to its ratepayers, who are saying clearly that they want the same level of service as other council areas. It's time to change the decision and to make sure that green bins are collected on a fortnightly basis.
Citrus Canker
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (10:44): It is disappointing to hear that citrus canker has again been detected in Australia. This has happened seven times over the last hundred years. Within Flynn are several large citrus farms: 2PH Farms in Emerald, and Golden Mile Orchards at Mundubbera and Ironbark Citrus at Mundubbera, just to mention a few. In 2004 we saw the wholesale destruction of the Emerald and Central Queensland citrus industry, a 50-kilometre exclusion zone and the eradication of every tree in the town and the surrounding properties. If you had a lemon tree in your backyard, that went too. I met with Craig Pressler of 2PH Farms on Friday. He is very concerned about the rise of citrus canker. In 2004 the Pressler operation was crippled by citrus canker. To eradicate the canker some 500,000 trees had to be destroyed at their Emerald orchard. This was done to curtail the incursion. Vigilance and swift action is the key. It is paramount that strict quarantine is followed. We now have canker in the Northern Territory and some parts of Western Australia. I urge the authorities to take the same action as they did in Emerald in 2004. The same action is now required in the Northern Territory and WA, otherwise the risks are very high and could see the end of the citrus industry in Australia.
While at Emerald I attended the Western Queensland Local Government Association conference. It was attended by 150 delegates, as well as a minister and senators. The 12 shires that attended included Barcaldine, Blackall, Isaac and Longreach, just to name a few. Well done and congratulations to the committee chair, Mr Kerry Hayes, mayor of Central Highlands Regional Council, and his team. It was an excellent conference.
Weave Youth and Community Services
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (10:47): I rise to pay tribute to Shane Brown, who has recently retired after serving for 35 years as the CEO of Weave Youth and Community Services. Weave began as South Sydney Youth Services in 1976, set up by a group of local parents worried about the welfare of their children and other children in the area who were playing on the streets at night. Shane Brown joined the organisation as a social worker and later became CEO. Weave provides much-needed support to young people, children, women and families who are socially excluded, and aims to build a stronger and more connected community. I would say it has succeeded in doing so.
I've known Shane for very many years. During that time Shane has shown a tremendous amount of dedication and commitment to his work strengthening the community through providing support. Shane's strong understanding of the positive impact of social justice and the political system meant he thrived in the role of CEO and helped shape Weave into the organisation it is today. He believes equality brings people together and creates more vibrant and healthier communities. As the CEO of Weave, Shane was focused and driven, and respected by his colleagues and by the people he served. He had a reputation for finding new and innovative ways of delivering services with positive impacts.
One of the areas that the old South Sydney Youth Services, later Weave, took on almost uniquely was serving young people who had a dual diagnosis of a mental illness and a drug or alcohol addiction problem. They were often excluded from mental health services because of addiction problems, or excluded from addiction services because of mental health problems. Under Shane's leadership and guidance this uniquely disadvantaged group of people received assistance they would have otherwise missed out on. Today Weave's programs include their Kool Kids Club; tutoring; mental health, drug and alcohol counselling; outreach; juvenile justice; their Women and Children's Centre; their Arts Program; psychological services; and Aboriginal information and referral. They do all of this in an incredibly fun and vibrant environment, with skateboarding competitions, barbecues and so on. As the local member, I was pleased to help a few years ago Weave secure from our government's community infrastructure program a $2 million grant, which enabled Weave to build a new head office and youth hub in Waterloo.
Shane's focus on bettering the community and improving the lives of its young people has been evident right throughout his working life. On behalf of the parliament and on behalf of the people of Redfern and Waterloo, I thank Shane for his service and wish him all the very best in his next venture.
Grace, Mr Robert (Bob)
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (10:50): I rise to speak about one of the true gentlemen of the Northern Beaches—Robert H Grace. There would be very few residents in most areas of Pittwater who would not recognise Bob Grace and his beloved dog, Bear, going for a morning walk. Bob, who is a passionate and committed member of the Pittwater community, is not only one of the fittest gentlemen I know but one of the most humble and charming. In fact, when spending time in his presence you feel yourself getting more charming.
Fifty years as a barrister in criminal law would most likely drive me insane—or more insane—but not Bob Grace. What is often unknown about Bob is that in his early life he studied to become a pharmacist. However, Bob failed chemistry twice. This did not go to waste. Bob is still to this very day able to get a reaction out of often inert elements! Bob, as self-disciplined as he is, did not give up and got a job as a roaming salesman. During this time he juggled work with studying law. Fifty years of service to those in need of legal advice has opened Bob's eyes to the numerous individuals unable to express their voice, muted by financial or legal complexities. He has been compared by some to the likes of Charles Waterstreet and this has sparked a will in Bob to aid these individuals.
As a local government councillor—first serving on Warringah Council and then Pittwater Council—Bob continues to be a passionate member of the Pittwater community. Although we may not share the same views about the amalgamation of the former Pittwater Council, I admire and, most importantly, respect his convictions and his reasoning. The longevity of his service to Pittwater—20 years—has earned him the title 'Elder of Pittwater'. His fatherlike persona has nurtured and cared for both the community and the beautiful waterways of his home. Whale Beach in particular reserves a special place in his heart. Bob has lived there most of his life and has served 30 years at the Whale Beach Surf Life Saving Club.
Bob's generosity of spirit does not cease. From 2015 to 2016 Bob was Director of Eurobodalla Homes, which provides low-cost retirement residences to senior Australians in Newcastle and the Northern Beaches. To this day Bob continues to carry his enthusiastic, considerate attitude in every moment he lives. He lives by his life's motto: 'Treat everyone with respect and dignity'. He said, 'I try to treat people as I would like them to treat me.' By recognising his service today we treat him with the respect and dignity he has shown for our community—the respect and dignity he deserves. Bob Grace is certainly a proud member of Pittwater and Mackellar—a member that Mackellar is certainly proud to have.
Dravet Syndrome
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (10:53): I'd like to bring the attention of the House today to an issue that is particularly important to me. I've been contacted by a parent of one of my patients—Dean Taylor, who has a daughter who has a particularly intractable form of childhood epilepsy called dravet syndrome. This is a genetic form of epilepsy—the gene defect has been identified—so it's relatively easy these days to identify the patients who are suffering from this condition. These children usually present when they're very young with very difficult to control generalised and focal seizures, sometimes also with absence-type seizures.
The seizures themselves are very difficult to control. They can continue for minutes—sometimes even hours—if they are not treated in an emergency situation. In terms of the long-term control of the seizures, very few anti-epileptic drugs have been shown to make a difference. In fact, some can make seizure control worse. Many of these children are on multiple medications, all of which cause significant side effects. The children, because of the intractable nature of the seizures, develop gradual deterioration in their developmental milestones and require 24-hour a day treatment and frequent hospitalisation. This is an enormous cost in time and lifestyle, as well as costing money to the parents. It has been shown in some of these children, but not all, that medicinal cannabis can have a role in managing children's seizures, improving their lifestyles and, in some cases, even allowing for some improvements in their developmental progress.
Unfortunately for these children, and for other people who may benefit from medicinal cannabis, their treatment has been compromised by the difficulties in prescription and the difficulties in supply of medicinal cannabis. I would like to take a completely bipartisan response to this as we do need to develop mechanisms that make the availability of medicinal cannabis and the prescription of medicinal cannabis much easier for the patients who may benefit. There is, of course, a balance. One of the difficulties we have as medical practitioners is this balance between compassion, wanting to do what we feel is the right thing for our patients, and the evidence, and there certainly have been some claims made about medicinal cannabis that are clearly not true. It is not a cure-all. It's not a drug without side effects, but it is relatively safe and the people we treat with medicinal cannabis are in urgent need of a better way of prescribing it.
Coalition Government
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (10:56): I want to address today what I have referred to previously as the binary challenge for a federal government, and that of course is securing the nation's economy—a safe and secure community where opportunities are available to people of every background—while dealing with the flip side, which is innovative and progressive social policy that ensures that the money collected by government, as cautiously and prudently as possible, is spent in a way that has maximum impact. An easy way of breaking that down is health, education and social policy. In those three areas, the coalition has increasingly been the vanguard party improving these elements and helping people answer: how do I secure an education for my family, how do I maximise healthcare outcomes and how do I ensure that young people in my family get a job? Most importantly, and I think my colleague across this chamber will agree, as the other registered medical specialist in this building, there is the importance of identifying vulnerable children early and engaging with them as soon as possible, once they're detected by healthcare providers.
That hasn't always been easy. There aren't many doctors who would confidently say that they're prepared to screen an 18-month-old baby at general practice level to work out what's going on, but increasingly we must do it because the specialists are able do it if there's just a glimmer of suspicion from those that are at the primary care interface. So we're asking nurses, practice managers and childcare workers to think more about childhood vulnerability and be part of ensuring this net does not allow these beautiful children—born not vulnerable, but becoming vulnerable by virtue of their circumstances—to arrive at school at the age of five and unable to pick up a pen; unable to read letters; unable to identify colours, shapes and numbers—the basics that you need to hitch that young fate onto the train of education. Those five years are incredibly important, not just self-evidently; they are where we can most effectively and most cost-effectively intervene and make a difference. I'm glad that is a priority for the friends of early learning, which is a bipartisan group in this building.
We're working very, very assiduously also on identifying the school interventions that are most effective, and we've seen Gonski 2 with important recommendations. I've previously called it a solo flight looking at the greatest education systems in the world, but they ultimately have to be applied here in what I'm describing as an overworked teacher population. There are 300,000 Australian teachers, who we love dearly and we admire incredibly, but we underpay them and expect that the love and admiration will make up for that. It's fine to be passionate about your public policy position as a doctor, a nurse or an emergency service worker, but, ultimately, I want teachers paid for the hours they do and I'd like to see schools in disadvantaged areas being rewarded for the transformations they achieve with their children. Let's have that kind of social policy pushed by both sides of this chamber.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There being no further constituency statements by honourable members, the next item of business will be called on.
MOTIONS
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (10:59): I move:
(1) acknowledges that the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS):
(a) supports a better life for hundreds of thousands of Australians with a significant and permanent disability, and their families and carers; and
(b) will provide about 460,000 Australians under the age of 65 with a permanent and significant disability with the reasonable and necessary supports they need to live an ordinary life;
(2) notes that:
(a) the NDIS began in a number of trial sites around Australia from July 2013;
(b) the NDIS is now operational across Australia;
(c) as at 31 December 2017, there were 132,743 participants with an approved plan with the NDIS and 9,523 children receiving support through the Early Childhood Early Intervention approach; and
(d) the NDIS roll-out in Western Australia will commence 1 July 2018;
(3) calls on the Government to urgently address delays and inadequacies in the NDIS operations and roll-out, including:
(a) funding adequacy and access to the scheme;
(b) NDIS plan approvals and plan renewals;
(c) access to adequate health services, care and supports, housing and other essential services; and
(d) ensuring that the pricing structure of the NDIS enables service providers to deliver high quality support to participants in the scheme including for group activities that are being threatened by the current model;
(4) reaffirms its commitment to:
(a) ensuring Australians with a disability continue to get the support they need;
(b) the scheme roll-out continuing to ensure a smooth transition for people with disability and support providers; and
(c) an adequately funded and resourced NDIS; and
(5) encourages all Members of Parliament to support the NDIS roll-out and the access to support it provides to people with disability.
The NDIS is something that Labor members of this caucus and of previous caucuses are incredibly proud of. It is something that I am incredibly proud of and, arguably, it is one of the things that ignited my passion for politics and finding a pathway into this place. It was Labor that fought for and introduced the NDIS that would transform the lives of people with a disability and make sure that they were able to achieve the level of independence that many of us here take for granted. We left office in 2013, with a plan to fully fund the NDIS for the next 10 years. This budget is a clear admission that the National Disability Insurance Scheme has always been fully funded. This is a massive embarrassment for the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, who have spent years and years fuelling the anxiety of people with a disability and their carers by telling them that the NDIS is in some kind of danger, that it is not fully funded or that, as a country, we cannot afford it. An elderly couple in my electorate, who have a son in residential care, came to see me. They're incredibly old now and they worry about his life when they pass away. This is the case for many people. With the droning and constant squealing of the Treasurer that the NDIS isn't fully funded, they were terrified that their son's future was being placed at considerable risk. It takes an exceptional type of cruelty and of being so out-of-touch to do this to families. This makes me even more committed to holding this government and its weak-as-water rhetoric to account.
Currently, there are about 142,000 participants with an approved plan who are accessing the NDIS, which includes about 9,500 children receiving support through the Early Childhood Early Intervention, ECEI, approach. An estimated half a million people under the age of 65 will finally receive the care and support that they have been waiting for so long to receive. The Commonwealth Ombudsman raised concerns about the timeliness of reviews in its report issued last week. It stated:
Of particular concern is the issue of delays in completing reviews. In February 2018, the NDIA advised our Office it had around 8,100 reviews on hand, and it was receiving around 620 new review requests each week. The NDIA has acknowledged some reviews are taking up to nine months to be completed.
We cannot afford to stumble on the implementation of the NDIS. It is a groundbreaking scheme. It is a system, a policy and a piece of infrastructure that will change people's lives; it will create an absolutely tangible difference. Fundamentally, this NDIS is a once-in-a-generation reform package, similar to what we had when we introduced Medicare many years ago.
My office has become an NDIS de facto office and shopfront, with people contacting me every single day about their inadequate plans, about the reviews, about needing help or advocacy and also about the staff who mean well but who are, unfortunately, not trained. Take, for example, Tracey, who resides in Penrith, with her husband and their 13-year-old son, Bradley. Tracey has voiced her concerns and frustrations about resources and funding of the NDIS multiple times. Her son Bradley is severely disabled. He was diagnosed with cerebral palsy. He has severe spinal scoliosis, is non-verbal and is wheelchair-bound. Tracey is the kind of mother this country should be applauding. So this government should not be running around fuelling her anxiety about what's to come. Tracy is Bradley's full-time carer, and his dad works six days a week to provide what their family needs. Bradley is non-verbal, as I said, and he has been waiting 20 months for communication aids. That's 20 months. I'm not quite sure what the delay is, but we've asked and we've asked and we've asked. He would be one of those 8,000 people who are waiting for a review. The response continues to be 'It's being reviewed.' He's due for surgery in September for a spine fusion. He's going to need a shower trolley. Imagine that! He's going to have spinal surgery. It is 11 months since that request was made. The wheelchair has been approved, which is a small win, but it will take three months to get it from America.
A single mum in my electorate who contacted me has two children, a six-year-old and an eight-year-old, who have both been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. She contacted me, pleading that, under the current NDIS budget, she's concerned for the wellbeing of her kids. The care plans in place for the children are inadequate and will not fund the critical support services that they need. Her son attends behavioural therapy, and mum has noticed significant improvements, as we do. The core budget gives this family some room to hire additional support at home. Without this, she will struggle to manage. Her request for a review has been lodged; however, it will be some months before it's considered.
Briefly, I would like to acknowledge the news in the media in recent days about the National Disability Insurance Agency's categorisation of autism. Both the NDIA and the government must work with stakeholders to make sure that the NDIS delivers for people who have autism spectrum disorder and must not through some kind of cost-saving exercise make it harder for people with autism. People with autism account for about a third of the participants accessing the NDIS, and a further third will. I am incredibly disappointed with the NDIA's handling of this issue in recent days. It has been poorly managed. It is so typical of this government to bungle anything. Quite frankly, I don't think it can be trusted to deliver a pizza at this rate, let alone a life-changing opportunity for hundreds of decent Australians.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ): Is there a seconder for the motion?
Dr Freelander: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (11:05): I thank the member for Lindsay for her motion. I know from our service together on the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme that this issue is important to her, as it is to all of us. The NDIS is one of the largest and most complex healthcare projects undertaken since Federation. That's why the government has been working soberly and proactively with stakeholders to get this right. It was, after all, the Turnbull government which reached agreements for the full rollout of the NDIS with all the states and territories. It was also our chairing of the COAG Disability Reform Council which saw it endorse the frameworks and strategies needed for rollout.
Last year we introduced the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, and properly resourced it with $209 million over four years and 300 staff. As a result, the overall story from the NDIS rollout is a positive one. When asked directly during our inquiry into mental health services under the NDIS, every one of the organisations involved stated that the rollout has seen a huge positive impact on the lives of a great many people. Service providers have taken on new staff, others have begun offering new mental health or disability services and some are expanding into new geographical sites. Many people are getting help that previously did not. Many have certainty and structure in their care, and many are enjoying the additional control they have over their own lives. As at 30 September 2017, when more than 112,000 Australians had NDIS plans, 84 per cent of participants surveyed rated their experience with the NDIS as either good or very good.
As we address what I acknowledge are emerging areas for improvement, we should not lose sight of the fact that, in general, the NDIS is already making a life-changing difference for tens of thousands of people. There certainly are challenges, but the government is acting to address them. There are concerns about people's ability to get continued access to services which are not covered by the NDIS or for which they will not be eligible. Last year, the government addressed that concern when it came to mental health, with $80 million for community health services to help people with severe mental illness who are deemed ineligible for the NDIS.
In this year's budget, the government has gone further, allocating a further $92.6 million for other existing clients of Commonwealth disability support programs who are ineligible for the NDIS. There are also concerns about the workforce capacity needed. Again, the government has responded in this budget with $64.3 million for a Jobs and Market Fund to support the growth of disability service providers and the disability-care workforce. There are concerns about the funding of advocacy services. Providers had been offering this support unfunded. But, last August, the government responded with a $60 million funding package to pay for that advocacy.
While the NDIS may face challenges, we must reflect on how much worse the situation would have been under Labor. This government has taken the decisions needed to fully fund the NDIS. While we waited for the results of our economy-building policies to flow through, we took the tough decision to raise the Medicare levy. Now that our jobs-and-growth agenda is having its effect, we are instead spending the dividends of our strong economic management on supporting our community's most vulnerable. In contrast, a Labor-run NDIS would have faced a budget shortfall of more than $5 billion a year, and a true budget black hole of $57 billion in the years to come. Labor claim, of course, that the NDIS was fully funded all along. But I'm afraid their track record of managing it does not give us any reason to believe them. It was Labor, after all, that dived into trials of the NDIS a year earlier than the Productivity Commission recommended, so that they could have it as part of their election campaign. It was Labor that signed the Commonwealth up to one-sided agreements which took 100 per cent of the financial risk with little or no control over the levers to manage that risk. And let us not forget that, in just one quarter of operation under Labor, the average cost of an NDIS package blew out by an average of 30 per cent.
Under this government, the NDIS is fully funded and on track to roll out on time. As with any project of this size there are challenges to be overcome and where they are identified this government is responding with swift and prudent action. Personally, I cannot wait for the NDIS roll-out on the Sunshine Coast, from 1 January 2019.
Mr HILL (Bruce) (11:10): I'm speaking up today on behalf of Caddie Whitehead and her son, Xabian Paterson, a gorgeous young child who has severe cerebral palsy. Caddie drives an hour and 20 minutes each way so that she and Xabian can attend the Cerebral Palsy Education Centre in my electorate, because CPEC's flagship transdisciplinary group program, which has been operating for decades, is the best thing Caddie has found for her son. Yet, shockingly, this brilliant program will have to stop if the government fails to act quickly to fix the NDIS pricing structure, which is now making it unviable. After trying other early interventions, Caddie quickly realised that this program was going to make Xabian into the best person that he could be. The family had actually moved from New South Wales to Melbourne as Caddie's husband had a work contract. Xabian was born shortly after. When Grant's contract for work was up they decided to stay in Melbourne instead of returning to the comfort and help of their family in New South Wales, because they wanted to continue on with CPEC, as they could see the benefits for Xabian and their family.
The class is eight children and four instructors—a physiotherapist, an occupational therapist, a speech pathologist and an aide—plus the parents and carers. Learning from the transdisciplinary team of instructors is important, but having other families present is a key part of its magic. I visited a few weeks ago and saw this firsthand. To work, however, this program requires a one-to-two funding ratio. The program has been evaluated formally for over 20 years—individual outcomes have been evaluated, video recorded and annual assessments. It's evidence based.
So, what's the problem? It's not a lifelong program; it's early intervention for kids between 0 and 6 years old to moderate the severity of their condition, giving them skills for life and saving costs to governments later in life. The problem is that the government is making a growing mess of Labor's visionary NDIS. The NDIS pricing structure is still one-size-fits-all and requires a ratio of one-to-three for group programs, which means for every therapist you need three kids for it to be financially viable. This simply doesn't work with the severity of CPEC's participants.
The NDIA also won't fund the critical planning, preparation, resource development and support activities for this cohort, which take about 10 hours a week. So, right now, CPEC is limping along with bandaids and sticky tape trying to hold it together while cutting back places and seeing their waiting lists grow. Ridiculously, they're now covering the costs for this critical program through fundraising and higher fees. But it can't be sustained. I've written to the Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services asking her to act. We may be on opposite sides but she's a wonderful colleague and a credit to you mob. She actually cares about what she's doing. It's shameful how you've just knocked her off in preselection. I still figure it's better to approach her than the hapless Minister for Social Services.
I call on the government and the NDIA to intervene urgently to save this program. There is no time for your normal dithering with correspondence and do-nothing approach. This flagship program will die if changes aren't made urgently. This is not an isolated problem. I've been told that due to the NDIS pricing structure therapeutic group programs have been phased out by providers across the disability sector nationwide.
We hear a lot about bipartisanship. When it's convenient, it gets thrown at us—bipartisanship on the NDIS. Let me be clear: bipartisanship is not a slogan; it's not a sticker; it's not a gag on us; it's not a leave pass for scrutiny for you; it's not an excuse for inaction or bastardisation of Labor's visionary scheme. Bipartisanship is a conditional offer on the government being competent, honest and faithful to the intent of the NDIS and doing the right thing.
Unfortunately, this group-pricing saga is one of many growing problems of the NDIS under the Liberals—not placing the patient at the centre of the scheme, as was intended. There's cultural problems at the NDIA. They've got thousands of contractors and expensive consultants and not enough staff, because of the government's fake staffing cap. We heard news just today of secret plans to kick thousands of people with autism off the NDIS nationwide. The draft plans are not available for review. The IT system is a debacle—the myplace portal. The workforce challenges are a joke. The Productivity Commission says one in five new jobs in the next few years in this country will be disability-related, such is the scale of this change. Yet there's no workforce strategy. There's no national advertising campaign to try to get the workforce we need—nothing. So, we are watching.
The truth is, of course, that in their DNA the Liberals hate universal services, and they hate these universal entitlement programs. They oppose them at every step. If you look through Australian political history, Medicare was scrapped by the Liberals after Whitlam introduced it and was brought back by the Hawke government. It's always under attack by this mob. There are public schools and the NDIS: we build it, you cut it. Every groundbreaking reform, since 1908 with the invalid pension, since 1991 with the disability support pension and the NDIS— (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ): I thank the member for Bruce. Before I call the member for Bennelong, I'd just like to issue a general reminder to the chamber and to the member for Bruce to direct remarks through the Chair, and also give a reminder to use moderate language in the chamber.
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (11:15): Thank you to the member for Lindsay for raising this important issue. The National Disability Insurance Scheme provides life-changing support to Australians with disability. This is why the Turnbull government has committed to fully funding the NDIS. The time for political games over the NDIS is well and truly over. Australians want to see the scheme fully funded and support being provided to those who need it. The Turnbull government has recognised the importance of the NDIS and has ensured that they have covered the $56 billion funding gap that had been left behind by Labor.
Despite Labor's unwillingness to support our initial plan, the government has ensured that the NDIS is fully funded without any increase to the Medicare levy, thanks to our strengthened economy and the government's strong budget management. It is now more important than ever that Australia has the strong economic management that only the coalition government can deliver to ensure we can fund the NDIS into the future. Now it is time to deliver the NDIS in the most efficient and effective way.
The recent budget guarantees the funding for the NDIS. In addition to this, the government is ensuring that those ineligible for the NDIS will continue to receive support. The government has committed $92.6 million for continuity of support for existing clients of Commonwealth disability support programs for people who are ineligible for the NDIS, and $64.3 million for a Jobs and Market Fund to support the growth of disability service providers and the disability care workforce to meet the needs of the NDIS. At its full operation, 460,000 Australians will be supported by the NDIS, with an estimated 2,129 people in my electorate of Bennelong being supported by the scheme.
There are a number of fantastic stories and lessons about the NDIS that have come from my own electorate. Royal Rehab, the Rehabilitation and Disability Support Network, is an incredible rehabilitation hospital in my electorate that has worked with thousands of people every year since its inception in 1899. It was responsible for the rehabilitation of the injured rugby league player, Alex McKinnon. Royal Rehab runs a supported independent living program as part of the NDIS and have repeatedly expressed to me how happy they are with the scheme. Particular recognition must go to their Chair, Tony Stavely, and the outgoing CEO, Stephen Lowndes, for all of their amazing hard work and dedication in serving the local community of Bennelong. Stephen concludes his tenure as CEO in June of this year, and I would like to thank him for his 10 years of committed service to Royal Rehab and to the people of Bennelong. I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome the incoming CEO, Matthew Mackay, and wish him the very best of luck in this role.
Naturally, the transition of such large-scale and established service provider systems like the NDIS brings with it a number of challenges. However, the government continues to work towards improving the implementation and understanding of the scheme. Two weeks ago, my office was made aware of difficulties faced by the Estia Foundation, located in Gladesville, in managing their client's NDIS budgets. Estia was initially established to provide short-term overnight accommodation to people with disabilities. However, they found that towards the end of the financial year, many clients who unexpectedly required short-term respite did not have sufficient funds in their NDIS plans. This caused Estia to undertake a restructure and turn towards more long-term group accommodation. I'm happy to report that Estia will continue to employ staff and support individuals with expert levels of care. Their work is a great asset to our local community. Experiences such as these are not ideal, but play an essential role in developing and improving the scheme.
Another great NDIS success story in Bennelong is a local organisation called RASAID, the Ryde Area Supported Accommodation for Intellectually Disabled. I've spoken about RASAID a number of times in the past. RASAID brought together 19 local families to secure accommodation for their 20 children with intellectual disabilities and with high-care needs. Last year, upon hearing that RASAID was on the verge of closing its doors due to complications with supported independent living, I immediately approached Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services, Jane Prentice, who boldly leapt into action and ensured the organisation was the beneficiary of an early trial of a new tool kit that ensured funding was secured. I cannot thank Assistant Minister Prentice enough for both her work for RASAID and her continued advocacy for the NDIS to ensure all Australians have— (Time expired)
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (11:21): I'm very pleased to be supporting this motion moved by the member for Lindsay and to reaffirm my commitment to Labor's visionary National Disability Insurance Scheme. I am particularly concerned about reports that there are secret plans to remove support from those who have autism. We know that early intervention with autism is absolutely crucial to helping kids achieve the very best that they can and supporting parents to do this. Those reports are extremely concerning.
Today, I want to talk about the NDIS from the perspective of just one of the many people who has had to battle to have a fair go. Rachel Privitera is a young mum from Bligh Park in Hawkesbury in my electorate of Macquarie. She has an eight-year-old son, Cameron, who suffers from severe cerebral palsy and epilepsy, is tube fed and is legally blind. Rachel is tough. She is a fighter. But she has been forced by an underfunded and unsupported NDIS to fight harder than she should have to just so that Cameron can have access to the things he needs just to get by.
Rachel has found the battle with the National Disability Insurance Authority all-consuming. When I met with her recently with the Leader of the Opposition, she described devoting every waking moment to fighting for her son. She was doing things like walking away from the car, leaving the boot open and accidentally leaving bags in places, all because of how totally consuming her battle with the NDIA was. She wasn't being selfish. She wasn't fighting for what anyone would consider to be luxuries. This was about keeping her son sufficiently hydrated. I'm not going to go into the personal medical details here, but Rachel did share them with us when she spoke with us, and it's clear that the NDIA and this government are not doing enough.
The reality is that this government doesn't see Rachel and Cameron as a priority. If they did, they would not be throwing money at big banks and big businesses; they would be committing resources to ensure that the NDIS was working effectively and working the way it was intended to, so that everyday mums like Rachel don't have to have their lives turned upside down repeatedly by bureaucracy. Rachel has fought her way through the inadequacies and the downfalls of a poorly implemented NDIS, and secured her son what he needs.
What is so impressive, though, about this young mother is that she's not satisfied to have adequate resources for her own son alone. She's concerned for every man, woman and child who doesn't have the ability to fight the way she fought for Cameron. She's concerned that many are not having their voices heard or their needs addressed because the system simply isn't accessible. You shouldn't have to fight for something that you have a right to. The loudness of your voice and the people that you know should not determine whether or not you access the NDIS.
Rachel has now gone even further in her fight: she's taking up the fight for all families who have children with a disability. I want to share with you her words about the sort of facilities she wants to see in our communities. She wants to see fully inclusive playgrounds, like Livvi's Place playgrounds, so families like hers can feel like part of the community, not separate from it. She says:
When our family goes to a Livvi's Place playground, we can stay for hours, we invite other friends from Cameron's special needs school, we have a BBQ! These are things that a normal family do. In a normal park, without equipment for Cameron, we can only stay for half an hour. Cameron cries, he's excluded, he can hear other kids playing & laughing.
They're the words of a mum who knows what our community needs. It's not Cameron's disability that holds him back; it's his lack of access to things that the rest of us just take for granted.
As many Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains residents know, neither place is completely accessible. In the Hawkesbury, we have bumpy and slanted walkways, a legacy of our heritage. We have heritage guttering, high enough to ensure that a trip down the street counts as a leg day at the gym. All of this is a challenge not just for wheelchairs but for prams and elderly walkers. The mountainous terrain naturally creates its own challenges, especially for people to access recreational areas. There is certainly a demand from the community for greater inclusivity in our play areas. I'm determined to see more inclusive facilities across Macquarie, and I'll be standing alongside Rachel and Cameron and other families to fight for what is their right and for a fair go.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (11:26): Firstly, I congratulate the member for Lindsay for moving this very important motion this morning. The member for Lindsay has been a very passionate advocate for the rights of people living with a disability in our community and has been a great supporter, not only in her time in the parliament but previous to that, of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I'm pleased that she's moved this motion today because, just like Medicare, the prices and incomes accord or Mabo, the NDIS is one of those great Labor nation-building initiatives that moves our nation forward, providing better quality of life for a marginalised group of Australians.
I must pay credit, also, to the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, who is actually the person who provided the impetus in this parliament for the NDIS to come to fruition. When Bill was the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services in the previous Rudd government, he consulted widely. He travelled around the country consulting representative groups and people living with disabilities; he planned, crafted and helped deliver the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It should never be forgotten that Bill Shorten was the initial architect of that scheme. Finally, those living with a disability were getting support and most importantly the help that they needed for new opportunities in life and for living a rewarding and fulfilling life. That's the basis upon which we introduced the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It's progressively being rolled out throughout the country, with, as the motion points out, 132,743 participants and 9,523 children receiving support through early childhood intervention.
There have been some teething problems. You would expect as such with a large policy and a new rollout. Certainly in Kingsford Smith, many participants in the scheme, their families and friends have consulted me about the plans and the fact that some of them have had issues—not supporting current supports, not supporting goals and new aspirations—and I'm pleased to say that, in most cases, we've been able to work them out, working with the local office that's situated in Maroubra, and I thank the staff there for the work that they've been undertaking.
This motion moved by the member for Lindsay goes to a very important point—that is, ensuring that the pricing structure of the NDIS enables service providers to deliver high-quality support to participants in the scheme, including for group activities that are being threatened by the current model. This is becoming a big issue in the community that I'm in. Already, one of the service providers, HeadEast, which provided support for people who were victims of brain trauma associated with car accidents, has had to close. They simply couldn't continue to operate under the current pricing structure. Other providers have also contacted me, saying that, if the current pricing structure continues, they simply won't be able to provide services for people living in our community.
The government commissioned McKinsey to do an independent report in February 2018. Recommendation 9 of that report was:
The NDIA should update the pricing structure for the core support item ‘Group based activities in a centre’, to allow providers to charge a high intensity loading where a more skilled worker is required to serve a participant …
The NDIA have had a look at that and responded to that recommendation. In the NDIA's response they recognise that this is an issue. They recognise that the current pricing structure is inadequate. They say that the recommendation is supported and will be implemented by 1 July 2018. That's weeks away. Some of these service providers have been contacting the NDIA and saying: 'When is this change going to be implemented? What is the new pricing structure going to be?' The NDIA can't give them an answer, and that is putting at risk the support that many of these providers are providing, particularly to people who need high-end supports in a one-to-one situation.
It's not good enough to have this uncertainty about whether high-dependency support for families in vulnerable situations is going to be able to continue under the new service model. The NDIA have to get their act together. The minister has to step in here and get the NDIA to publish what they will do in the future to ensure that these service providers can continue to provide this support and, importantly, that the people with high-end needs who rely on these services can continue to get the supports to live fulfilling and rewarding lives.
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (11:31): The National Disability Insurance Scheme is a world's first scheme to provide support to people with a disability. The mission is for it to change the way people with a disability, their families and disability providers work together. Naturally, making such a vast change to the system will create challenges. It's bigger than the original snowy dam project or even building our Navy ships. Late last year the NDIS reached a major milestone, with over 140,000 Australians with a disability now receiving this life-changing support.
During the last week of April and the first week in May we held four NDIS forums in Gilmore. The idea was to get the providers, the NDIS and the NDIA in the same room as the carers and clients of the system. This was an enriching event for all who came. They initially expressed frustration and anger at the process, but they had some issues resolved and some pathways determined. There is a real need for the planners, the LACs and the people involved to have complete dialogue with each other, as many of the issues that become frustrating can be fixed fairly readily if there is full and compassionate communication. This is confirmed by 83 per cent of participants who entered the NDIS in the December quarter rating their experience as good or very good. Also, since the scheme began, the overall average satisfaction rating has remained high at 90 per cent.
There has been a large increase in the number of providers registered, which is now more than 12,300. There is room for more. I was told last week that many small businesses, like plumbers and other trades, could also be providers, but they don't realise it.
While the government is continuing to work with the National Disability Insurance Agency and the state and territory governments to make sure the success of the NDIS with regard to participant outcomes, financial stability and the economic benefits to the country, I must mention that it seems as if the state governments—at least in New South Wales—have retracted some of the block funding before time, so there are gaps appearing for continuity of service. It makes me feel a little concerned.
An independent evaluation conducted over the last 4½ years has confirmed the NDIS is improving the wellbeing of people with a disability. The story of Cameron McMullen in Ulladulla is a perfect example. He was proud to let us know that his life has been completely changed for the better. He has more activities and his goal for personal freedom is about to be delivered in the form of a modified vehicle. As the report indicates, the NDIS is one of the most important social policy innovations. The hundreds of good stories are often lost when the few that really do need our attention to help resolve come to our notice.
I, for one, will be thrilled when the current trial program is universally available. That will mean that the plans that are developed for clients are shown to them and/or their carers before being delivered to the government for approval. What an amazing difference that will make, leading to fewer reviews, less dissatisfaction and happier results overall. I'm hopeful that the organisations responsible for Early Childhood Early Intervention in Gilmore have the sensitivity and background knowledge that help families and their children with disabilities to navigate the system and get the best possible outcomes. Such a group that has been an outstanding provider so far is Noah's Ark. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for them.
Some parts of the NDIS truly need help. The planners need the proposed services to be described in everyday language, but the NDIS needs the technical descriptor or medical explanation. This needs to be resolved, and was brought up in each of our fora. Mental ill health is part of the NDIS, but accessing the program can be difficult at best and impossible at worst. The very support structures that have been in place under the state government are now withdrawing their funding, as is supposed to happen, in June this year. How can we deliver a no-disadvantage system to people who pass the New South Wales state eligibility criteria for mental health support but have been rejected by the NDIS? The consequence is that very important support they have been receiving is no longer available. Sunflower House is a place where women in particular go for mental health support. Last week I spoke with a number of very concerned staff, and also Leanne, who stayed back to give me her story:
Prior to attending Sunflower House, I was totally housebound. I would not even go to my letterbox. I was socially isolated and disconnected from everyone and everything. I had attempted to take my life on numerous occasions throughout the years, the last one almost successful. This service has helped me in so many ways, I have a safe place to attend, I've made friendships, my children are no longer worried about me as they were.
Leanne has been accepted by the NDIS, but many of her new friends at Sunflower House have not, and she asked me to ask the government why not, for many of them with mental health problems are at the same risk as she was. I will ask and follow up.
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (11:36): I begin by commending the member for Lindsay for bringing this very important motion on the National Disability Insurance Scheme to the attention of the House. The NDIS, as we all know and acknowledge, is an historic reform initiated by the previous Labor government, designed to support Australians with disabilities to have the best opportunity for the same quality of life as the rest of us in the community. This is why this government must match its rhetoric with action to ensure the commitment it has repeatedly given to Australians with disability and their carers provides adequate funding and resources to support and provides all measures necessary to live their lives without barriers to the fulfilment of their potential.
In March this year the NDIS began rolling out in my electorate, giving my constituents the very-long-awaited opportunity to finally transition to and access the scheme. My constituents will join thousands of others across the north-western region of Melbourne who will be required to submit their care packages for assessment and hopefully approval. For some the process they have engaged in is already providing a source of anxiety and frustration. The longer-than-expected rolling-out in the federal seat of Calwell has been a source of concern to begin with, but now the assessment experience itself is proving a challenge, as is the pricing structure.
For instance, to date we do not have a local area coordinator for the Brimbank area, which is at the north-western end of my electorate. Many of my constituents are facing unnecessary delays and unwelcome hurdles to accessing the NDIS as a result. Despina Havelas, who is a parent and activist for families with autistic children and has founded a local support group, Autism Angels, tells me our local parents are very worried and concerned about the lack of help provided to help them navigate a very technical and different approach to assessing their cases. Most of these families are of non-English-speaking backgrounds, and that in itself is an additional disadvantage to defending the rights of their child, family friend or relative who is trying to access the NDIS.
So far the rate of approvals has been disappointing. Complaints by people trying to access the scheme are mounting, as people believe their individual needs are not being properly considered. Those who have gone through the assessment often cite the phone interview as a major obstacle, as this method of interaction does not allow person-to-person contact, which is vital in helping assess the needs of the applicants. The lived experience cannot be gauged by telephone-only assessments, as the approach by the case workers appears to be primarily driven by cost-saving attitudes and measures, which means the experience is more about deleting or refusing services that once were provided in the package in order to save money. This should not be the overriding concern of the assessment process. The best package for the individual's needs to be the primary concern. People with disabilities have a right to access the NDIS fully, not partially. They should not be made to feel that they have to fight every step of the way in order to justify the most appropriate package to help them and their carers live fruitful and valuable lives.
One of my constituents, Andrew, attempted to access the NDIS and was refused for both the NDIS and the disability support pension. Andrew's a good example of someone who hasn't been able to convince, despite medical records, either providers that he is eligible. He has an impairment in his back, hip and shoulder that make it difficult for him to work. Andrew cannot stand for long periods of time, he cannot lift heavy things, he finds it difficult to write and has restricted movement when sitting. Andrew's treating doctor considered him eligible for the NDIS and the DSP. Despite this, an unnamed delegate told Andrew that he could not access the NDIS because the delegate was not satisfied that Andrew has a physical impairment. He is 64 years old and very soon he will not be able to even access the NDIS. He won't be able to access the age pension age pension for six month. So, the question is: what is someone like Andrew expected to do in order to support himself?
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (11:41): I am pleased to join the discussion initiated by the honourable member for Lindsay about what is a very significant and important topic—the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The scheme is now in its second year of transition and there is a long way to go because, if you look at the numbers, as of December 2017 over 140,000 Australians with disability were enrolled in the scheme, but this has to reach an estimated number of almost half a million—about 460,000—in the next couple of years or so. So the work which is undertaken by the National Disability Insurance Agency and by state territory and Commonwealth governments to bring about a full and proper rollout of the scheme is quite substantial and will be significant in the years to come.
There are a number of issues which arise from the operation of the scheme. Along with the honourable member who moved this motion, and another member here in the chamber, Mr Wallace, we are part of the joint standing committee which oversights the National Disability Insurance Scheme. In this parliament, we've issued a number of reports looking at various aspects of the operation of the scheme, including: early childhood and early intervention; a second report on people with psychosocial disability related to a mental health condition; and a third completed report on transitional arrangements. The committee is currently undertaking a number of inquiries into general issues relating to the scheme. One is into market readiness, which is a huge issue right across the country, particularly in those areas where there are, to use the cliche, thin markets—in other words, large areas, usually, without the same distribution of services that you would find in a major metropolitan city. There is also an ongoing inquiry, which we hope to see the fruition of soon, in relation to hearing services.
I think it's fair to say that, in common with all who have looked at this, regardless of what side of the chamber we happen to sit on, there are a number of issues that are ongoing in terms of the work which needs to be done by the agency and, in some cases, by the state, territory and commonwealth governments. One is in relation to planning, and, particularly, the process of planning. The general view is that plans that have been entered into and created over the telephone are not as good as plans which are done in person. And related to that is the question of communication, particularly between planners and participants in the scheme and, more generally, between the agency and participants.
That leads to a second area of ongoing challenge, and that relates to reviews of plans. I'm not necessarily speaking on behalf of the committee, but it does seem to me personally that if there's an opportunity for face-to-face planning and there's an opportunity for those plans to be reviewed by the participant and their family prior to the finalisation of the plan, it's more likely that two things will result: firstly, the plan is more likely to meet the needs of the participant, having had the opportunity to actually review it, and, secondly, if that's the case, then it cuts out or reduces substantially the number of reviews that need to be undertaken. It would seem from a point of simple bureaucratic efficiency that this would be a better way, not to mention the justice that I believe would flow from a better process.
There are also issues in relation to the involvement of providers and their appropriate input. And while there are always issues in this regard about conflicts of interest, nonetheless in other areas of public policy we've been able to resolve the conflict of interest and allow for the appropriate input of providers, and that should appropriately be the place in relation to the NDIS as well. Also related to providers, there are questions of pricing that are being looked at by the agency at the present time as well as the timeliness of payments to providers. If payments are not made in a timely way, if tens of thousands of dollars are outstanding to providers, then what we're placing at risk is the actual provision of services, and that would be a worse outcome for those who have disabilities than it is at the present time.
As I said, this is a work in progress. I welcome the specific measures that have been announced by the government in relation to the Early Childhood Early Intervention gateway, the introduction of typical support packages to benchmark the amount of support for participants with specific characteristics, the increases in risk-based quality assurance of the access and plan approval, the very necessary increase in staff training, and the redesign of the participant pathway to look at goals and sustainability in relation to participants themselves. It's a work in progress, but a very valuable scheme. (Time expired)
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (11:46): First of all, I would like to thank the member for Lindsay for moving this motion this morning. The NDIS has really been the best social change that we've had brought in by this parliament since Medicare. It's made a huge difference for many of the people I've been caring for in my working career over the last 40 years as a paediatrician. It really has made a huge difference for many people, and at a level that really requires us to stop and think about what was happening previously.
Many of the people that I saw, as they got older, would have a constant worry about what would happen to their child as they approached adult life with a disability and when their parents could no longer look after them. Many parents who were elderly and who had children with, for example, Down syndrome were finding that, as their children approached adult life, it was physically difficult for them to care for them and they worried about what the future held for them. Many of them would save every cent they had by skimping on holidays, by not affording themselves the little luxuries of life to try to save for their child with a disability's future. The NDIS has now brought them certainty that we as a society will take over their role, that we will say to them: 'We are part of this journey with you. We will care for your child, whether with cerebral palsy or Down syndrome or an intellectual disability, and we will make sure that their future is secure.' That has been a huge change for them.
I can remember speaking to Julia Gillard long before she became Prime Minister, and it's my belief that we owe her a huge debt of gratitude, as well as the previous Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, who developed a bipartisan approach to the NDIS. It is very important to note that the NDIS, from its inception, had bipartisan support and commitment to funding. The attempt to politicise the NDIS has been a bit of a tragedy, and I won't have any part of that. The NDIS has bipartisan support. We should all accept that. It has bipartisan funding, and that should be the end of the argument.
There are many issues with the rollout of the NDIS. It was rolled out quite quickly, and I think it was important that we did roll it out as soon as we possibly could because the need in many cases—and the need for many of the people who I see—was urgent. So I don't think we should make any apology for the rapid rollout of this scheme. But there have been some problems. Some of them have already been mentioned. No. 1 is the lack of training of the planners; that has been a mistake and I believe it's now being remedied retrospectively. There has also been an issue with people trying to do NDIS plans over the telephone, which I don't think is appropriate. I think we've accepted that. Now that that's occurred and we've seen the problems that planning over the phone can cause, face-to-face planning is the rule rather than the exception.
We also know from talking to disability service providers, such as Macarthur Disability Services in my electorate, that there have been a number of issues with things like funding for transport. That is very important if you're disabled; trying to get to different services can be a major cost and time impost on getting appropriate intervention. That's one area. Personal care costs also have not been appropriately examined, and I think are something we're trying to fit retrospectively to make them fit for purpose.
A huge issue—and this has been identified today by the member for Gilmore—is the lack of appropriate funding for people with severe mental illness, such as one of my old patients, Nathan. He has severe schizophrenia, often medication resistant and with frequent relapses. If you ask Nathan if he has any problems, the answer, because of his fear of interaction with bureaucracies and medical and health professionals, is, 'No, I'm fine; I have no problems.' And yet Nathan has intractable problems: he sleeps on the street, he has epilepsy that's uncontrolled and he often has wounds and sores that are not being properly treated because he sleeps on the streets. So attention to people with severe mental illness is vitally important as part of the NDIS.
But I would stress that it's a wonderful program, it has bipartisan support and we support it. Thank you. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Mental Health
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (11:52): I move:
That this House:
(1) expresses its support for continued trials into suicide prevention in rural and regional Australia;
(2) recognises:
(a) the huge toll suicide takes on regional communities;
(b) that people in regional areas are more likely to take their own lives than those in metropolitan areas;
(c) that suicide is the leading cause of death in people aged between 15 and 44; and
(d) that regional communities are affected by economic stress, the effects of natural disasters, isolation and loneliness, leading to increased risk of suicide;
(3) encourages the National Suicide Prevention Strategy to:
(a) commission regionally appropriate suicide prevention activities; and
(b) identify young people at high risk of self-harm or suicide and support them; and
(4) supports funding into mental health research and trials in electoral divisions across regional Australia, such as those conducted in Whyalla, Port Augusta, Port Pirie, Port Lincoln and Yorke Peninsula, in the electoral division of Grey.
Suicide is the last thing a person does in their life. It's a waste, it's sad and it's horrific. I rise today to add my support to the people and programs which seek to raise the profile of this issue so those who need help realise they're not on their own but that the community and the government stand ready to help them.
The reality is that every day loving, talented and good people are felled by a seemingly unlikely killer: themselves. The triggers for suicide are many and varied, and it seems that regional communities carry more than their fair share of those issues. Economic stress; natural disasters; isolation and loneliness; and high incidence of drug and alcohol use are all factors which are prominent in regional areas. These, in turn, lead to an increased risk of suicide. In fact, data is available showing that the risk of suicide for farmers is twice the national average.
The conventional belief is that suicide only impacts on close family members and that following a death by suicide it is only immediate family members who suffer the terrible resultant grief. Those who fall outside the circle of next of kin are often forgotten in the aftermath of the suicide death, but it's clear that schools, workplaces, teammates and communities are also deeply impacted by suicide. Every member of this place has almost certainly been personally affected by suicide. Certainly, I am one of those.
The need to address suicide is one that brings this parliament together; it is beyond politics and we all seek to find solutions. The government's National Suicide Prevention Strategy is a most welcome program, and demonstrates the parliament's commitment. This program is delivering suicide prevention training courses throughout a range of regional centres throughout my electorate of Grey. Its initiatives include an Indigenous suicide crisis support and after-care workshop held in Port Augusta last year. Participants came from all over Australia to attend the two-day workshop, bringing professional and cultural expertise together to explore prevention strategies and interventions, which address suicidal crisis and follow-up care, and to explore what works for Indigenous populations.
Through the Country SA Primary Health Care Network, the 'question, persuade and refer' training program is being offered to around 1,000 community members within the National Suicide Prevention Trial regions, including Port Lincoln, Whyalla, Port Augusta, Port Pirie and the Yorke Peninsula. The program is designed to equip everyday people with three simple steps to help save a life: ask a question, try to persuade the person to seek help and then refer that person to the appropriate assistance. Like all pilot programs, we can never be sure of the results, but it's fair to say that we have not arrived at this point by accident. The program is being implemented on the best advice. We recognise the value of the community knowing how to assist and hopefully one day save a life.
Five suicide prevention groups in Grey have been awarded grants through the National Suicide Prevention Strategy to continue to work to reduce the number of suicides. These are the Empowering Lower Eyre Suicide Prevention Network, the Port Lincoln's suicide prevention network, Stamp Out Suicide Copper Coast, Stamp Out Suicide Yorke Peninsula and the Whyalla Suicide Prevention Network. As part of this strategy, the government is also extending support for Roses in the Ocean training for community members with a lived experience of suicide, which has been accessing data from regional community suicide prevention forums and the online survey to help identify the key priorities in the trial region. Strong themes have emerged during the regional suicide prevention networks' work.
I'm also pleased to report that John Dawkins, MLC, has been appointed as chair of the Premier’s Council on Suicide Prevention, a state government initiative tasked with reducing SA's suicide rate. Mr Dawkins, who has for more than a decade been a passionate advocate for suicide prevention, will act as the Premier's Advocate for Suicide Prevention. I have already spoken to John about the links between the SA and federal governments, and I look forward to working with closely with him.
The government's approach on this very confronting issue is multipronged, with the PM recently announcing a $34 million boost for Lifeline. The budget, which sits before the parliament at the moment, has allocated $338 million for mental health funding and there is the associated boost for suicide prevention programs. In closing, I return to personal issues: the huge toll that suicide takes on families and on regional communities and the sad reality that too many people—sons, daughters, husbands and friends—are no longer with us. In the words of the Roman philosopher Seneca, 'Sometimes even to live is an act of courage.' We need to give people that courage.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Wallace: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (11:57): I acknowledge the member for Grey and his seconder for putting this motion up. It give us an opportunity to ventilate a lot of the issues around the extraordinarily high rates of suicide across this country. I want to start my contribution by just highlighting the extent of people dying from intentional self-harm. In 2016, the Australian Bureau of Statistics tells us that suicide accounted for over one-third of deaths, 35.4 per cent, among 15- to 24-year-old Australians and over a quarter of deaths, 28.6 per cent, among 25- to 30-year-old Australians. For those over 35 to 44, it was 16 per cent.
Significantly though, I note the member for Grey's discussion around the impact of suicide on rural areas. He is right to point that out in relation to people working in the agricultural sector in particular, who clearly have been suffering high suicide rates. But the most prevalent impact of suicide is in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities across this country. In 2016, 162 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons died as a result of suicide, so the bureau tells us. The standardised death rate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons is 23.8 deaths per 100,000 persons compared to the rate of 11.4 deaths per 100,000 persons for non-Indigenous Australians. The median age of death by suicide in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons over this period was 29 years, compared with 45 in the non-Indigenous population. So Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are committing suicide at a much younger age. Aboriginal females had a lower median age of death, 26.1, compared to 29.8 for males. This is extraordinary and it gives you a picture of a dynamic which is happening in many communities across Australia. Over the five years from 2012 to 2016, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people between five and 17 years of age accounted for more than a quarter of all suicide deaths in this age group. So, when we contemplate what we're talking about here, it is a catastrophe of huge proportions amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, and particularly in remote areas.
The member for Grey talked about the 12 regions selected for trial sites. Two of those are specifically for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. One of them is the Darwin area. I've been attending the committee for these trial sites in the Darwin area, and I'm pleased to do so. The National Suicide Prevention Trial aims to gather evidence on how a systems based approach to suicide prevention can be best undertaken in Australia. I've attended two of the working group discussions in Darwin. Topics discussed included giving greater attention to the zero- to 17-year-old age group. That's supported by the evidence coming from the Bureau of Statistics. Another topic was community control and empowerment grounded in the community based on community needs and accountable to the community. This is of relevance to all of regional Australia, not just Darwin. A further topic was taking a holistic and sustainable approach. We've got to give people confidence that there are ways of preventing self-harm but also dealing with and treating those people who have attempted self-harm.
While I welcome the trial sites, and it's very important that we do, I want to make an observation about a matter which I think is a bit concerning. A health equality plan was developed by us in government and has been adopted by this government. The implementation plan for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan 2013-23 has not been funded. This is important: not one single dollar has been put into this implementation plan by the government. The plan addresses issues to do with people involved in mental health and suicide. The complementary National Strategic Framework for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People's Mental Health and Social and Emotional Wellbeing 2017-23 needs an implementation plan and an appropriate levels of funding. It is yet to come. Whilst we're talking about these issues, as well as having cross-party support and bipartisan support across this parliament, we need to make sure that resources are given so that we can make an impact on this dreadful scourge in our society.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (12:03): I thank the member for Grey for bringing forward this important motion. Although none of the suicide prevention trials that we're discussing here today are in my own electorate of Fisher, we do have one in the northern part of the Sunshine Coast. For that, I thank the government and congratulate the member for Wide Bay for his hard-fought advocacy on this important issue for regional Australia. This trial is another part of the Sunshine Coast's increasingly pivotal and cutting-edge role in combating the terrible impact of suicide in this country.
The Minister for Health visited Fisher earlier this month to see the facilities and meet the people who are carving out that role. The main purpose of his visit was to officially open the Thompson Institute. The Thompson Institute is already well on the way to being one of the nation's leading research facilities for understanding and treating a range of mental health disorders. I was proud to be able to make a contribution to that work with the support of the minister when we delivered $5 million in the 2017 budget to fund projects at the institute on youth mental health and suicide prevention. We showed the minister the cutting-edge MRI scanner which the institute has installed and which allows director Dr Jim Lagopoulos and his team to understand the physical changes in the brain which lie at the foundation of many mental health disorders. Through these physical examinations, supported by the federal government's $5 million, and with the clinical experience of dealing with patients at a rate of more than 6,000 people each year, the Thompson Institute will, in the coming years, make contributions to our understanding of suicide prevention.
The minister also met with Mark Forbes and his EndED organisation—'EndED' meaning end eating disorders—to discuss their pioneering work in bringing Australia's first specialist residential facility for the treatment of eating disorders to the Sunshine Coast. I have no doubt that Mark's passionate and energetic pursuit of his vision will soon see our community at the forefront of another central part of the effort to combat suicide in Australia. Anorexia nervosa is the world's deadliest mental health condition. Having anorexia as a female aged between 15 to 24 increases their mortality rate 12 times over their peers. Eating disorders are more likely than any other mental disorder to lead sufferers to take their own lives, whether by intentional suicide or from the medical complications of dieting. EndED House will doubtless make an important difference to rescuing many from this tragic end. I hope that, with this minister's support, we as a government will soon be able to do something to help Mark to take this facility from a dream to a reality.
This government, led by the outstanding work of the health minister, has an unmatched focus on mental health and is already making an unprecedented investment in research and treatment, of which our regional suicide prevention trials are only just one part. The government should certainly be congratulated for this focus. However, I believe there is always more that we can do, and I will continue to work with the minister on some of the most important mental health issues in regions like the Sunshine Coast.
The tyranny of distance and physical isolation makes many people living in rural and regional Australia vulnerable to the impacts of cyberbullying. I believe that we need to do more to fight online abuse, and I'm working closely with the Prime Minister, the Minister for Communications, the member for Forrest, and the Attorney-General to pursue the legislative changes I think we need.
On the coast, we also have a great many former service men and women and members both past and present of the emergency services. For these courageous Australians, the debilitating impact of post-traumatic stress disorder can substantially increase their likelihood of suicide. I believe that the PTSD program at the Thompson Institute could make an important difference to better treatment for this condition in the future and to reduce its fatal toll. I'll continue to work with the relevant ministers to secure the funding that the institute needs to pursue this work.
The tragic reality is that, during our sitting week—just this sitting week—56 Australians will take their own lives; 1,680 will attempt to take their own lives and, for every person who is successful, 30 are not. The government should be commended for responding to this urgent issue, with unprecedented action and investment. I support the motion.
Dr MIKE KELLY (Eden-Monaro) (12:08): I thank the member for Grey for moving this motion on suicide prevention and for helping to shine a light on, in particular, the regional and rural aspects of this issue. As he has highlighted, it is much more amplified in our rural and regional areas for a number of the issues that he has canvassed and that my colleagues, the member for Lingiari and other regional members, will well understand. Isolation has a lot to do with it, but the stresses of life for farmers is also a significant factor, navigating the ups and downs of the seasons, the droughts and the more extreme weather we're facing, and then added to, I must state, in recent times by the behaviour of banks towards our farmers. I want to salute the work of Senator Williams for continuing to pursue, over the years, the banking royal commission, which is shining a light on that now. I really was inundated by complaints from the farmers in my region over the behaviour of banks, which was adding another whole layer of strain and stress to their lives.
So we know about the stresses on farmers. There are the kids in rural and regional areas who are coming to grips with their sexuality and navigating things like the recent plebiscite that we had. I've met with those kids and seen the pressures they're under and sometimes the tragic results that they have had. But there are also our Indigenous kids, as was mentioned by the member for Lingiari. I have quite a few concentrated areas of issues in my region that have, tragically, resulted in too many losses of lives amongst our Indigenous kids but also in teen suicide in general. That's why I was so proud of the fact that we were able to unite across the aisle in this parliament to form the Parliamentary Friends of Suicide Prevention, working together with my colleague the member for Berowra. When we first started that process we wondered how much we could achieve, but it really has been rewarding to see what we've been able to do—the unity we've been able to forge across the aisle, having both Greg Hunt, the Minister for Health, and our shadow minister, Julie Collins, attend a lot of our activities and reach consensus on some policy initiatives. Through that mechanism we were able to bring up, for example, Dr Duncan MacKinnon and his team from Bega. They explored a fantastic initiative through our team clinic concept, working through Greater Pacific Health down there, which addressed the real issues of why kids weren't reaching out for help and what sort of support we could provide them with to eliminate this curse. And it really works—providing that initial portal for kids to go and see nurses in a non-threatening situation, timing that with their transport to and from schools, being able to take that further if necessary, finding means to do that without any cost or charge to the kids, and then working that through with counsellors in the schools, et cetera. It's become a really successful model. I was really pleased that they were able to tell that story up here through the committee mechanism. I salute the minister for taking on the lessons from that and then expanding and funding the team clinic project through the Bermagui Medical Centre, the Curalo Medical Clinic in Eden, the Lighthouse Surgery in Narooma and the Mainstreet Medical Centre in Merimbula. The Kiama Medical Practice, further up the coast, has also benefited from this.
I'd like to see this taken nationwide using our GP networks, because they are so ubiquitous. It's been great to see what headspace facilities have done. They are a bit patchy, depending on their location and how they are being operated, and you can't have headspaces everywhere in the country. I think being able to build on this network of using our GPs and nurses to create a nationwide approach to this is a great way forward. I'm really pleased with the work that the committee has been able to do to get that policy process underway.
I'm also, though, concerned about the issues to do with our veterans in rural and regional areas and the people who are depending on Centrelink services. I know there's been a drive in recent times, everywhere, to try and create efficiencies and automate stuff, but, if you take the human out of human services, there's a problem. That's particularly amplified in rural and regional areas. If my veterans don't get a chance to speak with a person, or if my senior citizens are forced to try and deal with online services—the struggles they have dealing with the computerised services where they don't fit within boxes—it causes an enormous amount of stress out there.
Our electorate office has basically become an adjunct to Centrelink. My crew have had a lot of pressure put on them dealing with people in high states of stress and anxiety, but the work they have done has prevented a lot of potential suicides by helping people through that. I'd like for us to step back and have a look at providing better services in human services by using humans.
Mr DRUM (Murray) (12:13): I, too, would like to congratulate the member for Grey for bringing forward this motion on the National Suicide Prevention Trial. As a government, we are proud of the fact that we are extending this groundbreaking suicide prevention trial for a further year with an additional $13 million investment to ensure that local communities have more time to trial their services and to report on what's working and what's not. The National Suicide Prevention Trial is based on 12 locations across Australia, and will now run until 30 June 2020. I'm very grateful for the extension of the additional 12 months, although it's worth pointing out that regional Victoria has been left out. That's an area that we can look forward to in the future.
The resources needed to tackle suicide in regional farming communities in drought may be very different to the resources that are needed to tackle suicide in the inner cities of Melbourne or Sydney. The reasons for that difference may be the many external issues that many of our regional Australians are subject to. In regional Australia, for so many people their whole financial success or otherwise can be subject to the weather. World commodity prices, which many of our regional Australians have no control over—the world commodity price for milk, or fruit, or grain, or whatever it is—can seriously impact upon the viability and the sheer profitability of many people in regional Australia. The lack of access to people with the qualifications to help with a mental health problem can also be a factor as to why we have such different outcomes between those in metropolitan cities and those in regional Australia.
Apart from funding the suicide prevention extension, we are also funding additional mental health nurses in my electorate of Murray. These nurses are having a profound impact on the people they are helping. Mental health nurses are extremely valued in our primary healthcare system. We as a government are very determined to support them whilst the mental healthcare system is transformed and modernised. The PHNs, I might add, are playing a major role in that.
In the last budget, just two weeks ago, we also added a $20 million injection for mental health nurses to support Australians over 75 whose mental and physical health are at risk because of social isolation and loneliness. It highlights the strong commitment from this government.
I also want to touch on some of these differences in relation to remoteness being a major risk factor contributing to suicide. Breaking down the data from 2010 to 2014—I know it's a few years old—it shows that the major cities have the lowest rate of suicide deaths, at 9.8 people per 100,000. In inner regional areas it goes to 13. For outer regional residents the rate is 14.3. But for remote residents, it is 19 deaths, so it's more than double that of people in major metropolitan cities. Also, young people who live outside capital cities seem to be at a much heightened risk of suicide. The break down of those statistics shows that in 2010 in the capital cities—and, again, I know it's older—it is 5.9 per 100,000 in the 15 to 19 year old age bracket. Once you start to move out of the capitals it goes to 10.3, which is getting up towards double. Then, for 20 to 24 year olds outside the capitals it is 16.5. Again, a bit more responsibility in those 20 to 24 year olds—outside of the capitals there seems to be a very strong trend there.
We need to seriously look at what we are doing with this very, very important program. We need to look at regional Australia, the areas outside of the capitals, because it seems that that is where we as a society and we as a government are failing to address the high level of suicides.
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (12:18): I, too, would like to commend the member for Grey for his very-well-worded motion on suicide prevention, particularly in rural and regional areas, and elsewhere. The member for Grey may know an area called Callington, around Tailem Bend, which is hard farming area. This story relates to a farmer, with a young family, who worked the land. He'd been in the merchant navy and was adjusting to rural life in the area. One fine day he went out in his tractor to check the fence. As he checked the fence, a firearm he had with him discharged, mortally wounding him. He had tried to crawl back to his tractor but he didn't make it—he died. That man was my father's brother, AJ. My father, who died in 2016, took to his grave the hurt and loss of a very treasured, loved brother. The circumstances of his death always left that doubt. So, when the member for Grey raises this very powerful issue, it struck home to me because it was something that my father could never fully comprehend or understand. My cousin—AJ's daughter, Alva—died early, and I believe she was also severely affected by that loss. She struggled with mental illness. They lived around Callington and Carrickalinga. That family never recovered from that loss, so when the member for Grey talks about rural suicide prevention, he has my wholehearted support.
I support the government's funding of these suicide prevention centres, because they can literally save lives. How do I know that? We had a suicide cluster in the region I represent in 2011 and 2012. Coming from a family that had been touched by this, I started seeing the names of young people on bridges I drove past. We had a suicide cluster—it's a horrible term—and I understand it was the same in Albury as well, unfortunately. That led to my partnering with the Australian of the Year, Professor Patrick McGorry. We did a program on Four Cornerscalled 'There's No 3G in Heaven' encouraging the community to talk about the stigma around suicide and to get a conversation happening in our area. As a consequence of that program and the receptiveness of the then federal government and the subsequent Abbott government, two headspaces were opened in the area, in Dandenong and in Fountain Gate. The member for La Trobe, Jason Wood, was there when we opened the one in Fountain Gate; I was there in 2013 when we opened the one in Dandenong. Those made a meaningful change for young people. It's still not enough, but it's part of the matrix of services that kids can access. Those services should be available in rural and regional areas.
I watched the member for Grey's contribution. He mentioned that he had also had some experience with this. Families don't need to go through this. This is a loss. One suicide is one too many. We need to do something as a community, and that's why I welcome the bipartisan way in which the government is providing support. If we can get hubs like these headspaces into these areas, farmers and their families can seek support and start a conversation without stigma and reticence. The member for Grey and others are talking about destigmatisation, so that a farmer like my uncle—a proud, self-sustaining individual in the merchant navy—mightn't feel the need to end his life in the way in which he did on that day, many years ago. I commend the work the member is doing, and support the government. We can never talk about this enough. We should continue to do everything we can to stop these horrible events from happening in rural and regional areas and in our cities.
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (12:23): Following on from the previous speaker, I also congratulate the member for Grey for introducing this most critical motion. In preparation for this speech I read a 2016 report showing that youth suicide in our society reached record levels in that particular year. The report made a number of obvious observations—we are only now starting to recognise that what was considered previously to be accidental, a car accident or an accidental discharge of a weapon, is now being properly reported as what it always was: a suicide attempt or the ending of someone's life through exquisite mental agony and pain—and makes the point that the most disappointing part about the statistic is that now we know more than we have ever known before about mental health and what brings people to this most extraordinary point where they think their only option to end the pain they are suffering from is to end their lives.
The Turnbull government—and many governments around Australia—have recognised this is a problem that our community can and should do something about. I was very proud last year to help launch a $16 million initiative in my area that was dedicated towards mental health, mostly around identifying people who were at risk. That year—only a year ago—my area had suffered a series of people who were still at high school committing suicide. They had no reason to commit suicide—well, those of us on the outside looking in thought that they had no reason. They came from good families and had very good prospects. They had not ostensibly suffered bullying or any other outside influence that brought them to this point. The point was that we had not identified them as at-risk youths.
At this point I have to commend the principal of Barrenjoey High School, Ian Bowsher. At the time he recognised that this was a problem and was something that not only he could do something about but he must do something about. He took action. A number of people felt that finally they were in a place where they could openly and calmly discuss how they were feeling about these issues, so much so that they could get help and assistance. More importantly, they realised that they were not going through this alone.
My area has I think one of the great premiers that New South Wales never had—that is, John Brogden. John had a well-known public breakdown. He was put under extraordinary pressure by the media, which behaved irresponsibly. They went over stories that were not true in fact—frankly, they were fiction. John is a person of great capacity. If he had been given the chance to lead New South Wales, I know that he would have saved us from years of ineptitude and corruption. He would have made a real difference to millions of people in that state. But he was cut down because no-one thought to understand the sorts of pressures and the sorts of injustices that were being placed upon him. They never thought to reach out and say: 'How are you, mate? We're with you.' At that point he was deserted by so many who had previously pretended to be his friends.
John, to his great credit, did not slink away and did not decide that it was too much. John did what he always did—he got stuck in. He became the head of Lifeline in Australia. He has advocated tirelessly to help people who feel that they are at the point of suicide, at the point when they most need that help. I have to recognise that Julia Gillard reached out across the aisle to John Brogden. This government and other governments have provided millions of dollars in funding for Lifeline and the critical research and efforts that they make to help people.
I can only commend the member for Grey for pointing out all of these issues. I commend this motion to the chamber.
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (12:28): I also congratulate the member for Grey. I commend him for bringing on this motion. It's a very important issue. Suicide prevention is an issue that we all, irrespective of our political colours, clearly feel strongly about. It's vital that we continue to work together to ensure the various programs and initiatives started and funded by governments—your government or our government; it doesn’t matter whose—continue to receive bipartisan and even tripartisan support so that they don't get bogged down in the usual stuff and nonsense that can occur in this place.
Suicide causes enormous anguish to many people, families and communities. In rising to speak I, firstly, would like to express my sympathy and condolences to anyone who has been affected by the suicide of another person. It is the leading cause of death in Australia for persons aged between 15 and 44. Few would know that men aged 85 and above in regional Tasmania are actually the most at-risk group in all of the country, with suicide rates three times the national average. Tasmania has the second-highest rate of suicide in Australia, with 17 deaths per 100,000 people. Tasmania is, sadly, the only state in Australia where the rate is rising. Forty per cent of Tasmanians who access mental health services live in rural communities and regional areas, which is the subject of this motion.
I do commend the member for Murray for saying what I think a lot of us feel—that is, there's a lot of focus on suicide prevention in the cities and the suburbs, which is where a lot of the population lives, but the rates are so much higher in regional and rural Australia. There's this view of the heroic farmer who just takes all that life can give them—everything that happens on the land; the droughts, the floods—that there's a sort of stoic individualism and they just rise above it all. Well, they don't. They need help. The pressures, the financial pressures, that farmers and their families in particular feel when times are tough are just immeasurable. These are people who don't go out and seek help; they try and bottle it up. They try to do it all by themselves, and they're the people who most need assistance.
Preventing suicide is difficult, and causes great aguish for family members and friends who try to keep their loved ones alive and well. More investment is needed in our mental and general health services, particularly in preventative health services. I don't think enough attention is given by the medical fraternity to preventative health, which keeps people socially connected and keeps people emotionally healthy. The importance of community programs, such as recreation and sporting activities, cannot be discounted; however, they are often siloed: 'That's not a health issue. We'll let the local council deal with that. We'll let the local council fund that.' Well, the local council doesn't always have the money. We need to treat these things as health issues. Getting the local community bus out to the old folk who need assistance, because they live miles away, and taking them to the local community centre keeps those folk socially connected. It keeps them emotionally well. I think we need to look more broadly at what constitutes good health in our regional communities.
Tasmania is one of 12 sites around the country taking part in the suicide prevention trials. These were a recommendation of the National Mental Health Commission prior to the last election. I'm pleased to say those recommendations enjoyed bipartisan support. These trials would have occurred under a Labor government as well. And this is the importance of this issue that we all come together. I'm pleased to see that the federal government has provided $3 million for the trial in Tasmania, which will run to 2020. The focus in northern Tasmania is on men aged 40 to 64 and women over 65, which is very important. I am disappointed, I must say, that there hasn't been the focus on young people that I would like to have seen. In the last couple of years there has been an unfortunately termed 'cluster' in Break O'Day Council of young people taking their own lives, and I would have liked to have seen some focus on that, but we'll see in the future.
Before I wrap up, the Rural Alive and Well Program just does such important work in this area, including outreach work. It goes out to farmers and regional families and helps on the ground. It's a very important organisation, and it must be funded into the future and not have its funding cut. (Time expired)
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (12:33): I also thank the member for Grey for raising this motion. Suicide prevention and mental health are absolutely above politics. In fact, it is everybody's responsibility in every community when it comes to mental health and suicide prevention. I want to start by saying to anyone who is listening to this speech that if you are suffering or living with mental ill health, I want you to know there is help in your community. Information about crisis support services and links to beyondblue, the Black Dog Institute, Lifeline and headspace are on my Facebook page.
Earlier this year, the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Bill Shorten, was in Townsville and together we hosted a town hall meeting with more than 240 people. It was a packed room, with standing room only. After being asked many questions, the Leader of the Opposition asked the audience one question, and that was for people to raise their hand if they had known someone or had been impacted directly by suicide. Almost every person in the audience raised their hand, which was quite astonishing. But what is even more astonishing is the facts surrounding suicide. Lifeline reports that for every death by suicide it is estimated that as many as 30 people attempt to take their own lives. Suicide is also a major concern in my community. The dark shadow of mental ill health has hung over Australia for far too long. The stigma attached to mental ill health is almost as prevalent today as it was 50 years ago. In fact, for many young people, veterans, elderly men—as was mentioned by my colleague, men over 80 are particularly impacted—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the struggle is getting worse. Social media plays an especially large role in relation to bullying, which has extended now beyond the school yard. The expectations placed on the physical appearance and behaviour of young women and girls, for example, are completely unacceptable.
Before being elected to parliament, I was CEO of a community managed mental health organisation operating from Palm Island to Mount Isa. The community managed sector is more often than not overlooked when it comes to the vital and practical supports that can be provided to people on a day-to-day basis. The community managed mental health sector is both effective and efficient.
Mental health is one of my passions, and since being elected to this place in 2016, I have continued to champion more awareness and funding and access to appropriate mental health services for people in my community. Veteran suicide is one area that has been in the shadows for far too long nationally, but also in my electorate, which is a garrison city. I vowed in my maiden speech to stand up and fight for our veterans here in this place and I have worked very hard with our veterans every day since. Within the first month of being elected I set up Townsville's first Defence community reference group, which includes all Townsville's ex-serving organisations as well as current serving ADF and the RAAF personnel. The first item on our agenda was the veterans and families suicide prevention trial. As a collective, we worked hard on developing the terms of reference for the group, the job description for the project manager for the trial and the appointment of who would be on the steering committee. The group has consistently fed into the development of the trial that is currently sitting with the Northern Queensland PHN. I have been intrinsically involved with the veterans and families suicide prevention trial because I believe that these men and women, who have given selflessly of their lives so that we can live in the freedom that we experience in this country, deserve the very best support that we can offer.
The only way we are going to truly address the distress caused by mental ill health and suicide is by delivering a national stigma reduction campaign. We must encourage people in distress to seek help and support. Time and time again I hear people talking about the fact that they are too afraid to speak about their experiences because of what people might say. Time and time again people feel unable to discuss issues with their family members, their husbands, their wives. This is particularly the case in the veteran community and in workplaces where people are very afraid of losing their job. I would like to think that we in Australia, for the first time, could fund a national stigma reduction campaign that could be as successful as those in Canada, Scotland and New Zealand. That is the only way we will really get on the table the need for people to seek help and feel safe and comfortable to do so.
Debate adjourned.
Indonesia
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (12:38): I move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the importance of Australia's bilateral relationship with Indonesia;
(2) notes that:
(a) two-way investment between Australia and Indonesia was valued at $10.4 billion in 2016;
(b) 16,200 Indonesian tourists visited Australia and 1.248 million Australians visited Indonesia in 2016, making Indonesia Australia's second most popular holiday destination;
(c) cultural engagement programs like those fostered by the Australia-Indonesia Institute, the Australia-Indonesia Centre and CAUSINDY: the Conference of Australian and Indonesian Youth, are paramount to continuing to develop strong people-to-people links;
(d) Darwin has a key role to play in Australia's relationship with Indonesia through:
(i) educational opportunities such as Charles Darwin University's exchange programs, research groups, and international student places;
(ii) assisting Indonesia in building their emergency and disaster management capacity;
(iii) quick-response health resources like the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre; and
(iv) further strengthening trade capabilities and opportunities in the cattle industry, with Indonesia taking approximately 60 per cent of Australia's overall live cattle exports and more than a third of Australia's live cattle exports currently shipped through the Port of Darwin; and
(e) there are many areas in which cooperation between Indonesia and Australia could be strengthened for mutual benefit, including:
(i) countering transnational crime through cyber-security capacity building;
(ii) improving Defence capabilities and humanitarian aid/disaster relief assistance;
(iii) sharing the expertise of NT health professionals through clinical training and trainee/specialist exchange programs;
(iv) partnering on tourism initiatives like Indonesia's Beyond Bali campaign to provide opportunities to regional areas such as Eastern Indonesia; and
(v) expanding trilateral cooperation with Timor-Leste to improve humanitarian aid/disaster relief and strengthen maritime security, with opportunity for inclusion of other nations;
(3) encourages Members to reflect on recent occasions when the strength of the Australia-Indonesia relationship has been strained by decisions that, with the benefit of hindsight, didn't adequately balance all aspects of the relationship between our nations; and
(4) calls on Members to ensure our words and actions at all times demonstrate our deep, enduring respect for Indonesia and the value we place in maintaining a positive relationship.
The importance of Australia's bilateral relationship with Indonesia cannot be overstated, but before I speak to my motion today, I want to offer my condolences to the Indonesian people for the pain and loss of innocent life inflicted upon them during the recent terrorist attacks across Indonesia, primarily in Surabaya but also in other places. Our thoughts and prayers are with the Indonesian people and particularly with the authorities that were targeted by these attacks.
I wrote this private member's motion before those attacks. I want to say that, in addition to our thoughts and prayers, Australia is committed to working with Indonesia to address the threat of terrorism in our region and to improve coordination between all of our regional partners. The Indonesian people value diversity and tolerance. Diversity and tolerance are core to Indonesia's psyche and also the nation's stability, success and prosperity. We all know that terrorists seek to destroy these values through cowardly and inhumane attacks, and that's why we must be resolute. A stable, prosperous Indonesia is undeniably in Australia's national interests now and into the future.
In the time I have remaining, I want to address the human elements of my motion that go to the importance of fostering people-to-people links through cultural and educational exchanges and the central role that my electorate has—that is, Darwin and Palmerston—in developing Australia's relationship with Indonesia. There are cultural engagement programs, like those fostered by the Australia-Indonesia Institute; the Australia-Indonesia Centre; CAUSINDY, the Conference of Australian and Indonesian Youth; and also the Northern Centre for Contemporary Art in my electorate. These organisations are paramount for continuing to develop strong people-to-people links.
When we talk about regional cooperation, it was just this Friday past that we had a trilateral fashion show. There were Indonesian fashion designers, designers from Timor-Leste and designers from Darwin. We also have educational opportunities, such as Charles Darwin University's exchange programs, and research groups such as those at the Menzies School of Health Research. We have international student placements, which are critically important because they foster mutual understanding and respect through dialogues and exchanges of ideas and perspectives.
I'm very grateful to have the opportunity to speak about the importance of our relationship with Indonesia, and the live cattle trade is just one very important area of that cooperation. I spoke about this trade when I led an Australian Labor Party international delegation to Jakarta recently. We met with major political parties and leaders, including former President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, former Minister for Foreign Affairs Marty Natalegawa and members of all of Indonesia's major political parties. We discussed ways that we can work better together to realise opportunities but also address the challenges facing our nation. Australia's respect for Indonesia and our commitment to strengthening the relationship were central messages that we conveyed.
In tabling this motion today, the overarching objective is simple: I want all of us in this House to ensure that our thoughts, our words and our actions at all times demonstrate our deep and enduring respect for Indonesia and the value we place on maintaining a positive relationship with Indonesia. In the time I have remaining, I just want to mention that we are working with Indonesia on countering transnational crime and enhancing security capacity. We're working together in defence cooperation and also disaster and humanitarian aid cooperation. Our NT health professionals are working very closely with health professionals in Indonesia. It is a deep and abiding relationship, and one that we must be respectful of at all times.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (12:43): I second the motion.
Mr Stephen Jones then spoke in Indonesian—
This underscores the importance that we place on government-to-government and people-to-people links with the Republic of Indonesia.
Mr Stephen Jones then spoke in Indonesian—
If language is the window through which we interpret our world, then an understanding of our neighbour's language is an essential part of our living and working together in peace and prosperity. We should do this because Indonesia is our closest neighbour. We should do it because in a few short years Indonesia will be amongst the five largest economies in the world. We should do this because we share a neighbourhood and a mutual interest in peace, security and stability. But most of all, we should do this because it will enrich us all. Visiting each other's countries, enjoying each other's cultures and environments and understanding more about each other's rich and diverse history, can only be good for all of us.
At the moment, there are around 55,000 or 56,000 people who have indicated in the census that they speak Indonesian at home. The Republic of Indonesia advises that they have some 22,000 Indonesian citizens who are living in Australia at the moment, with around 20,000 of those living in the state of New South Wales. So we have a great foundation on which to build stronger mutual ties. However, it is a matter of personal regret that while we have talked about these things we have let some of our foundations slide, particularly in relation to Indonesian language education. Only four per cent of year 12 enrolments in tertiary recognised languages in Australia were in Indonesian. And while there are around 190,000 learners of Indonesian in Australian schools, the majority of this number, some 65 per cent, are in primary school and secondary students between years 7 and 10 make up another 33 per cent of total learners. But, sadly, the majority of these students drop out before they reach high school or senior years of high school. In fact, we have seen a decrease—a steady decline—in the number of Australian students studying Indonesian language at school. This is a decline of some 10,000 students per year between the years 2005 and 2008 alone.
So there are some structural issues that we are going to have to address. We need to have more students coming through primary and secondary school studying Indonesian, and we need to have more students going on to tertiary education and studying Indonesian at a level of proficiency which will enable them to return to the classroom and teach those students Indonesian language.
If we look at the geographic location of Indonesian teachers here, that is also a matter of concern. Overwhelmingly, they are concentrated in the capital cities. It is worth noting—and as the member for Solomon has pointed out—that while the concentration of Indonesian teachers and learners of Indonesians is in the capitals, the majority of our trade with Indonesia comes from regional and rural areas. So we have an imbalance, and we particularly have an imbalance where it matters the most. I am pleased to see that the Shorten Labor opposition was focused on this in our pre-election commitments in 2016. We promised 100 scholarships a year to Australian schoolteachers so that they could further develop their Asian language skills—a scholarship of around $120,000 each to allow them to go overseas to deepen their knowledge and their language skills. I'm also pleased that the government's focus on the New Colombo Plan has included Indonesia in its earliest phases.
But much more needs to be done. We cannot just be talking about it; we must do it. I say that members of parliament, like the member for Solomon, should be leading by example and explaining why this is so important.
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (12:48): I commend the honourable member on the other side of the House for his linguistic ability in standing here and being able to speak Indonesian. I'm not sure if it was off the cuff or from paper, but nevertheless, it was most impressive. I wish I could understand it! I'm somewhat hesitant to endorse the words, other than to say full credit to it him.
Isn't it important for us to ensure that more Australians speak the languages of our nearest neighbours? I certainly endorse his enthusiasm for the work that is being done under the New Colombo Plan, to give young Australians the opportunity to work, live and, indeed, learn languages, in Indonesia as well as in other places, particularly across the Asia-Pacific region.
There is no doubt that once young Australians in particular have an opportunity to live and work in a foreign country and be immersed not just in their culture but also in their language then, yes, it does deepen the ties between those two countries but it also enriches Australia. It allows Australia to strengthen its hand as it continues to operate as part of the larger global political economy. Indeed, Indonesia is important; in fact, it is vital to us as Australians. My condolences go to the people of Indonesia, and I echo the sentiments already expressed by the opposition and by our Prime Minister in that regard.
Indonesia is a country of first-order importance to Australia, and that was confirmed in our foreign affairs white paper. To think this country is just on our doorstep; indeed, our northern archipelago is Indonesia. It has a vibrant economy and a vibrant democracy of now over 250 million people. It's quite extraordinary. This is why they are vital to us not just on economic grounds but also on security and strategic grounds. Economically, it's why we are negotiating the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. As part of ASEAN, we are negotiating with them for a regional comprehensive economic partnership. As someone who has worked and lived in Asia for much of his professional career pre-politics, I know that there is no substitute for experience on the ground, which is why there are far more business opportunities between the two countries and opportunities for young Australians and Australian small and medium businesses to make the most of the Indonesian marketplace, and also for us to be welcoming their businesses here to Australia.
Of course, our region is not as safe as we wish it were, which is why this relationship with Indonesia cannot be seen just on economic grounds; it must also be seen on strategic grounds, which is why, as a country, we are working so closely with Indonesia to address issues such as the fight against terrorism in particular. We, as a country, proudly operate as a sovereign nation, as a liberal, open democracy in a highly integrated and uncertain political environment internationally. As such, we, probably more than any other country in the world, need to ensure that our relationships are intact. If we look at our place in the world through the conventional wisdom of any economist or any political strategist, there is no larger country sitting in such close proximity to us than Indonesia. It's why that relationship needs to continue to be built. It's why I am eager to continue to support not just the foreign minister but of course the trade minister in trying to fast-track the negotiations for a comprehensive economic partnership. It's why we need to continue to work with ASEAN. While we ensure that our economy and our security ties are strengthened, let those people-to-people ties grow and let us speak their language as much as we encourage them to speak ours. Thank you very much for the opportunity.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Mental Health
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this House:
(1) expresses its support for continued trials into suicide prevention in rural and regional Australia;
(2) recognises:
(a) the huge toll suicide takes on regional communities;
(b) that people in regional areas are more likely to take their own lives than those in metropolitan areas;
(c) that suicide is the leading cause of death in people aged between 15 and 44; and
(d) that regional communities are affected by economic stress, the effects of natural disasters, isolation and loneliness, leading to increased risk of suicide;
(3) encourages the National Suicide Prevention Strategy to:
(a) commission regionally appropriate suicide prevention activities; and
(b) identify young people at high risk of self-harm or suicide and support them; and
(4) supports funding into mental health research and trials in electoral divisions across regional Australia, such as those conducted in Whyalla, Port Augusta, Port Pirie, Port Lincoln and Yorke Peninsula, in the electoral division of Grey.
Mr GEE (Calare) (12:54): I rise in support of the motion of the member for Fisher and I thank him for raising the issue of mental health in this House.
Mental health issues affect Australians from all walks of life and, as the member for Fisher has noted in the text of this motion, one in five people currently report having a mental health or behavioural condition. This can have a particularly serious impact on people living in country communities, and this is because the tyranny of distance in country Australia can mean that accessing mental health services can be more difficult, and it also adds to the sense of isolation that people dealing with mental health issues face. As a country, it's vital to continue the national conversation on mental health issues and, in so doing, to help remove the remaining stigma that can still be associated with them.
I note also that issues of mental wellbeing and mental health are more, not less, prevalent among our younger population. Children, teenagers and young adults, who are expected to make their way in the world, can sometimes bear an enormous burden that they shouldn't have to shoulder alone. In Lithgow, there have been some tragic cases of young people taking their lives in recent times. This has deeply affected the Lithgow community and has left it with a profound sense of loss. The community has been united on the issue of securing better mental health services for the city, and it was vitally important to the extent that the Australian government recently announced the establishment of a headspace outreach service for the City of Lithgow. This will provide mental health support for the young people of Lithgow and its surrounding districts. Working with the Nepean Blue Mountains Primary Health Network, interim services are already up and running, and these will be expanded and built upon as the premises are secured. That is underway at the moment.
I'd like to acknowledge the important and valuable work of many community representatives. The whole community has been behind this, but I'd like to acknowledge particularly Katrina Prescott; Frank Thorvaldsson; Lizz Reay, who is the CEO of Nepean Blue Mountains Primary Health Network; all the Lithgow city councillors who supported this new service; Stephen Jackson, who is the CEO of Marathon Health, which is tasked with delivering the new service; and also Greg Hunt, who is the Minister for Health and who has taken a personal interest in getting this service up and running for the City of Lithgow. It's an important service, because it will let our young people know that they don't have to bear this burden alone and that there is help there when they need it.
Another organisation in the Calare electorate providing critical mental health support is, of course, Lifeline Central West. These people work tirelessly; they give up their time—it's volunteer based. In Calare, it's based in Bathurst, which is at the centre. They work around the clock in difficult circumstances to provide people in country Australia with the support that they need in what can be their most difficult hour. I'd like to acknowledge the executive director, Alex Ferguson; the centre manager, Stephanie Robinson; and all the staff and volunteers at Lifeline Central West for their vitally important work. I know that the budget has delivered Lifeline a $33.8 million funding increase, which has been warmly welcomed.
The Centre for Rural and Remote Mental Health in the Calare electorate is another wonderful country community organisation providing valuable community support to people in rural areas. I'd like to acknowledge the wonderful and important work being done by Professor David Perkins and Trevor Hazel; by the researchers Dr Hazel Dalton, Dr Scott Fitzpatrick and Dr Donna Read; by Vanessa Delaney in the centre; and by the rural and remote mental health team members, Di Gill, Camilla Kenny and Tessa Caton.
As I said at the outset, mental health and the discussion of it need to be things that we keep shining a light on. It's going to take a national effort to overcome mental health issues and it's vital that this light continues to shine on them, particularly in country areas. So I thank the member for Fisher for this motion and I commend it to the House.
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (12:59): I thank the member for Fisher for putting this motion on the agenda and providing us with the opportunity to have a discussion about mental health issues. I want to acknowledge the contribution of the member for Calare. Coming from a regional part of Australia, I want to concentrate particularly on the impact of mental health on rural and remote parts of this country, and note the very important work that the RFDS does in the provision of mental health services to many people in isolated communities. One of the key issues for people who live in the bush—I'm talking about remote areas, not just regional areas close to capital cities—is access to services and access to professional assistance. The RFDS has been very important with that, as are Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services right across this country and primary health services in the Northern Territory in particular.
What I want to concentrate on this afternoon are the impacts of mental health on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities—across this country, but, most particularly, in the Northern Territory—and highlight the intergenerational impacts of mental health, the relationship between mental health and the justice system, and the importance of understanding the need to address mental health issues in community: specifically, where possible, within families and with the involvement of community controlled health organisations such as Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services.
A particular illness that I want to talk about is foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. At least one in three people in detention in Western Australia suffer from FASD. That comes from a report done by the Telethon Kids Institute in that state, as recently reported in the media:
Lead researcher Carol Bower said preliminary findings suggested 30 to 40 per cent of the young people detained at Banksia Hill had FASD.
"Often these young people have trouble relating cause and effect," Professor Bower said.
So, they've got this illness typified by:
Low birth weight, major organ damage
Small head circumference, small eyes, thin upper lip and diminished groove between nose and upper lip
Failure to thrive, feeding problems, sensitivity to noise, touch and/or light and developmental delays
Learning difficulties, memory problems, difficulties with social relationships, impulsiveness
And:
It can cause brain damage, delayed development and behavioural and learning problems, but is often not diagnosed at birth and only recognised later in life.
The initial impact is in utero and then it has repercussions right throughout the life of a person.
It's only over recent years that we're understanding the prevalence of this dreadful disorder across regional and rural and remote Australia. What it highlights—and the work done by the Telethon Kids Institute highlights—is the need for us to be aware of the relationship between mental health and the justice system and to provide a capacity for work to be done in the justice system that provides people with access to the care they properly need. For this purpose, we need to open up the world of medicine and health care in the justice system, to make sure the needs of people are being properly met. At the moment, they are not. That's a particularly important issue which we need to confront.
The prevention of this particular disease relates to the situation prior to pregnancy and ensuring that young women—and their male partners, but young women in particular—don't drink during pregnancy. If that happens, then we'll prevent FASD. But it is not the only mental health disorder which we need to be aware of. There are a range of them across the community. And we need to understand the need for the NDIS to be able to pick up and deal with severe mental health issues and ill health across Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
Currently, there are significant barriers. The language of disability is a barrier for Aboriginal people in some regions. There's also a need for translation services to be provided. These are significant questions. Many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people fear engaging with government services and asking for support because of distrust about government programs stemming from past poor treatment. There is a lack of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander support units within the NDIA. There is a real need for us to get our heads around the extent of this problem, provide the resources necessary to address it and understand the intergenerational impacts of it upon the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community.
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (13:04): I also thank the member for Fisher for bringing this motion forward. I just want to start by saying to anyone who is listening to this speech today that there is help in your community if you are struggling with mental ill health. For information on crisis services, there are links to beyondblue, Black Dog Institute, Lifeline and headspace on my Facebook page. Although any funding for mental health will always have my full support, I cannot stand in this place today and not raise the fact that I believe that the sector is not being adequately funded. You wouldn't try and feed a thousand people with one loaf of bread, but that is the equivalent of what is happening in the mental health sector under this current government.
Let's put into perspective just how prevalent mental health issues are across Australia. Almost one in two Australian adults will experience a mental health condition in their lifetime. The most common mental illnesses are depression, anxiety and substance misuse related disorders. Every day, at least six Australians die from suicide, and a further 30 people try to take their own life. Fifty-four per cent of people living with mental ill health do not access treatment. Delaying treatment, especially in relation to serious conditions, impacts on detection and an accurate diagnosis. Depression is the third-highest burden of all diseases in Australia—13 per cent—and it is the third-highest globally. The burden of disease refers to the total impact of a disease measured by financial cost, mortality, morbidity and other indicators.
For the financial costs related to poor mental ill health, it's quite staggering to see the figures: $10.9 billion is lost in workplace productivity; more than six million working days are lost per year as a result of depression; and, per worker, untreated depression costs an employer $9,660. Not only is mental ill health a serious health concern; it is also a national productivity concern. Yet the government is not adequately funding the mental health sector. The Turnbull government's funding is one of the smallest investments in the sector in recent years. In 2006, COAG added more than $5.5 billion to mental health spending. Under the Labor government, the 2011-12 federal budget provided $2.2 billion in new funding. However, in 2014-15, the Abbott government funded mental health to the tune of 5.2 per cent of the overall health budget, when mental health represented 12 per cent of the total burden of disease. Whilst these figures should not necessarily match, the gap is large and revealing. So, yes, the $80 million from last year's budget and the $11 million here and the $9 million there are all welcomed, but the lack of real funding is a real problem for the sector—particularly the community managed sector—and it doesn't begin to scratch the surface of need. This budget shows a lack of commitment to the mental health sector.
As someone who was the CEO of a community mental health organisation before being elected to parliament—I operated from Palm Island to Mount Isa, across the west—I have a deep understanding of what is needed on the ground, and the government is not delivering. Simply thinking that the NDIS is the solution just shows how completely out of touch this government is. Funnelling program funding for personal helpers and mentors, day-to-day living and mental health carer respite—all federally funded—into the NDIS is not a solution. We estimate that there are probably over 250,000 people with mental health conditions who will not be eligible for the NDIS. Access to support should not depend on where you live or who is able and around to look after you. This budget's commitment to mental health shows the lack of an overarching mental health strategy.
Rather than working with the sector to develop a coherent approach to mental health service planning, this budget continues the piecemeal, patchwork approach, where the system is driven mostly by who pays rather than by who needs what and where. There seems to be a belief that, as a nation, we have done mental health. Well, let me tell you: we have not done mental health. A lack of services on the ground, especially in regional, rural and remote areas, leaves people alone and suffering, families devastated and often confused, and members of the community stepping up in their own time as volunteers; they are overworked and overstressed.
The struggle for veterans has also been in the shadows for far too long. These men and women, who have given selflessly for their country, deserve to have the support that they need in their time of struggle. And I haven't even mentioned the aged-care facilities, where men over 80 are struggling significantly. There is a lot more that we need to do for mental health in this country.
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (13:09): I want to thank the member for Fisher for putting the motion forward today on mental health, and I want to particularly mention the previous speaker, the member for Herbert, and the contribution that she's made. She's talked about some very specific issues that face regions like her own, and she does so from a place of great experience. A lot of people outside this parliament looking in feel that members of parliament don't have experience in the real world, but the woman who spoke before me is a great exception to that. She has been the CEO of a disability mental health organisation in her region, and she just spoke with great passion about what this issue means to her.
My perspective on this comes from two real directions. One of them is that, like most Australians, I'm in a family where we've been affected by mental health. I feel very comfortable standing up and saying that. It's not been the case that people have been able to say that for very long, but it's discussions like this one—and the motion that's been put forward—that have created a space for us to be able to honestly talk about the things that have happened to us and how they affect us. Mental health shouldn't be an issue that's not discussed and, in a way, it's strange that it's not discussed. We know that during their lifetime one in two adults will have a mental health condition of some kind, and the fact that there's not a full and frank and open conversation about that is one of the issues that this parliament has to address.
I mentioned the statistic about one adult in two having a mental health condition. What we also know is that, in any given year, one in five Australians will fall into some kind of mental illness. Something that I'm desperately concerned about, as a member of parliament, is the extent to which this problem is affecting young people, which is the other perspective that I come at this from. We know for young people between the ages of 16 and 24 that almost one in four will be affected by a mental illness in any given year. And some very concerning research was published recently that shows that there's been a tripling of young people aged between 10 and 19 who are presenting at emergency departments as a result of mental illness. So we're not talking here about young people needing counselling because of some bout of depression that begins and ends, but about much more serious mental health conditions that require prolonged treatment. That treatment is simply not available to the young people when they need it, and that's an urgent national problem. Of course, when we get to the most extreme end of this, we see these incredibly tragic suicide statistics in Australia of something like almost 3,000 people a year taking their own lives due to mental illness. It's an urgent problem, and I'm very pleased to have this opportunity to speak about it.
I want to talk about an issue that is particularly affecting my community in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne—that is, the lack of services available to the young people that I've spoken about. I respect the member who's put forward the proposition that we're debating today, but it's important that, as politicians, we don't say one thing and do another. I'm concerned to see that there is a lack of funding and a lack of on-the-ground support for mental health services, and I really see that in my community in Hotham. I have about 9,600 young people who live in the City of Monash, which partly covers my area and partly covers the area of the member for Chisholm. The young people in this region have mounted this incredibly courageous program to push for a dedicated youth mental health service. What we know from talking to these young people is that they actually don't want to access the services that are available to adults. They don't feel comfortable with them, because the types of issues that they are dealing with are often quite specific to issues that confront young people today. And I believe firmly that those young people deserve and warrant a youth-dedicated mental health facility in these suburbs in Melbourne.
Unfortunately, the only option for these young people at the moment is to travel all the way from the City of Monash to the City of Knox. It's more than an hour, once you get to the right train line. I also represent young people who live much further south than the City of Monash, and getting to that line is just not possible for many of them. The Labor candidate for Chisholm ran a fantastic roundtable a few weeks ago on this issue. The young people that we spoke to were some of the most articulate, passionate, well-informed young people I have ever met at a roundtable like this, and their requirement that this is an absolute necessity for us in the south-east was made crystal clear. We haven't seen action from the member for Chisholm on this point, but it's something that I'm going to be working very hard at as we push through this last year of this election cycle. I'm grateful for the chance to speak on it today.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting
Sitting suspended from 13 : 15 to 16:00
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Middle East
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (16:00): Last week the world witnessed a massacre. On 14 May, Israeli soldiers shot and killed 58 Palestinians who were protesting near the fence that separates the Gaza Strip from Israel. Over 2,000 Palestinians were injured, including over 1,000 by live fire. This comes on the back of weeks of violence directed against protesters in which 116 Palestinians have been killed and 12,600 have been injured. The killings of protesters have met with condemnation and demonstrations around the world, including within Israel and in my electorate of Melbourne. Australia should be taking a stand. Not only has the Australian government refused to condemn the killing of over 100 civilians at the hands of armed soldiers, Australia this weekend became one of only two countries—along with Donald Trump's USA—to vote against a UN Human Rights Council resolution for an independent inquiry.
Those killed were participating in marches organised by Palestinian civil society groups to call for an end to the siege of Gaza and a right of return of Palestinian refugees. For 11 years severe restrictions on access to and from the Gaza Strip have devastated the population of nearly two million. According to Physicians for Human Rights, over 35 per cent of children suffer post-traumatic stress disorder and 59.7 per cent of Gaza schoolchildren suffer from anaemia. Forty-seven per cent of households suffer food insecurity.
Australia should be affirming the right to political activity and condemning the killing of protesters. Australia should be recognising the Palestinian state and pushing for an end to the siege of Gaza and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.
Page Electorate: GEMFEST
Mr HOGAN (Page—Deputy Speaker) (16:01): I'd like to congratulate the Lismore Gem and Lapidary Club on this year's 28th Lismore gem festival, better known as GEMFEST, for another successful event. Around 7,000 people, many from interstate and some from overseas, attended the two-day event that is held annually at the Lismore Showground. This equates to tens and possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars flying into the Lismore economy as dealers, stallholders and visitors from out of town need accommodation and places to eat. It is the biggest annual lapidary show in Australia. Each year it showcases a great array of gems and jewels. There are specific activities for children, where they get the chance to fossick for gems. Special mention must go to the organising committee—President Rodney Knight, Vice President Jenny Vryenhoek, Treasurer Bruce Copper, Secretary Lesley Cann, Pieter Vryenhoek, Marcus Bebb, Leonie Hyde, Belinda Holtby, Liz Weatherburn, Arleene Davies, Val Armstrong, Steve Payne, Ivan Turner, Gary Thompson and Peter Cann. Also, thank you to the sponsors who make this possible: Summerland Credit Union; WIN network; The Northern Star; 2LM; Bunyip's Great Outdoors, Lismore; Gemcuts Ballina; Chandler's Betta Home Living, Lismore; and Richmond Sand and Gravel. Karen and I thoroughly enjoyed our time there.
Petrie Electorate: Budget
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (16:03): I was out last week in North Lakes in my electorate talking to people about the budget and how it will affect them. I had this chance with the Treasurer, who popped up to North Lakes. We met with older people in North Lakes and spoke a little bit about how the budget affects them. One of the issues raised when meeting with older constituents was about Labor's new retirement tax and how that will affect grandparents. One lady—Diane—has a separate account with some money in it from the sale of her house, but apart from that all her income comes from dividend imputation. She was saying that she'll lose all of that, because at the moment it's less than $18,200 a year, which is a real concern. Our government will enable pensioners to keep an extra $300 per fortnight, through our pension work bonus initiative, without it affecting their pension.
The other real concern was around electricity. They were very concerned about federal and state Labor's 50 per cent renewable energy target being rushed out too quickly and sending their bills skyrocketing, which is a real concern. It was especially good to listen to them. I appreciated their feedback, and I'll be passing that on down here this week.
Employment
Mr IRONS (Swan) (16:04): It's great to see the member for Moreton listening to our speeches. He's here on his own! The Liberal coalition government is focused on helping people off welfare and into work. This is seen via the great work in creating over one million jobs since we were elected in 2013, as promised. Last week, the Minister for Social Services, the member for Wannon, visited my electorate of Swan, to announce a partnership with the Council on the Ageing WA—COTA WA—to trial a new program called Mentoring 2 Work. This trial will focus on improving job-seeking skills and work readiness for jobless youths through group sessions and one-on-one mentoring over a six-month period, with COTA administering the trial. Positive role models with experience of work can help our young people build their confidence and life skills, make decisions, prepare for interviews and find the right job that suits their skills.
Young unemployed people are at risk of long-term welfare dependency, with 39 per cent at risk of receiving income support payments in 10 years and 30 per cent at risk of receiving income support payments in 20 years. To help these people break the cycle of dependency, we need to be innovative. That is exactly what the Turnbull government is doing by investing $2 million into the Mentoring 2 Work trial from the $96.1 million Try, Test and Learn Fund. On this side of the chamber, we believe the best form of welfare is a job. This Turnbull government is delivering opportunities to Australian youth by helping businesses create one million jobs since 2013.
Liddell Power Station
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (16:06): It was disappointing, but not unexpected, that we heard today that AGL has rejected an offer for the Liddell Power Station. It was only a few short years ago that AGL actually ascribed a zero value to Liddell in an investor presentation, no less. Now they say to $250 million—a quarter of a billion dollars—cash up-front: 'No, we don't want it.' The reason they don't want it is because it is worth more to them to reject that. Their bottom line is better with that power station closed than it is with it open. That is why they've rejected that. It's because they want to push up the wholesale price of electricity.
We have a job and a responsibility here as members of parliament. This is an essential service. If our competition laws are not adequate to act against such anticompetitive conduct, I say we should amend our competition laws. This conduct by AGL will harm consumers, it will harm industry and it will harm all Australians. We cannot sit by or stand for it. As I speak now, Liddell Power Station is currently supplying 1,600 megawatts into the New South Wales grid. That is approximately 20 per cent. When that pulls out and that is not available, prices will rise significantly for consumers. We have to act against this. We cannot stand by and watch such anticompetitive conduct.
Leslie Harrison Dam
Liddell Power Station
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (16:07): I'll echo those words. AGL are complete economic crooks in deciding not to release Liddell, which they ascribed a value of zero to just a number of years ago. They are producing 1,600 megawatts of power. Clearly, not taking the quarter of the billion dollars that they were offered simply reflects they'd rather take no money and push power prices up by more than that instead. It's because they don't care about the customers; they care about their bottom line. They don't want to release a power station back to the Australian grid. It's an absolute disgrace. To every person in Redland City, if you are connected to AGL, I say to you: make a phone call now to iSelect, disconnect from AGL and send AGL a very clear signal. There are plenty of power providers looking out for the Australian people, rather than looking out for themselves like AGL.
On a more local note, Leslie Harrison Dam is already effectively a white elephant as far as water supply in Redlands goes. The image of state Labor MPs disgraceful. We have an MP who's the member for handbags, hampers and handshakes turning up justifying a nine per cent increase—so $88 over three years—to be added to the bulk water price for a city that actually looked after itself and provided for its water needs in the first place. To have that expropriated by state Labor government and now to have customers shoved with these kind of price increases is a complete disgrace. If you play with water in my electorate, you will pay. Redlands will not forget that. Albeit the election is a couple of years away, don't mess with our water.
Capricornia Electorate: Palmyra Dragway
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Chief Nationals Whip) (16:09): I recently had the pleasure of calling the president of Palmyra Drag Racing Club, Glenn Cunningham, to let him know the club was successful in obtaining $20,000 through the Stronger Communities grant program. Having only barely recovered from severe flood damage in 2012, Palmyra Dragway, like many others, was drastically damaged by the fierce Tropical Cyclone Debbie last year. Unfortunately, the state Labor government rejected the club's cries for disaster funding, and they were deemed ineligible to receive disaster assistance due to part of the club being outside of their boundary requirements. The Premier also rejected my request for a revision of the cut-off as this not-for-profit club was facing big costs with little assistance. This, too, fell on deaf ears. I was therefore ecstatic to be able to offer my support and assistance with funding through the Stronger Communities funding stream. Palmyra Dragway is an important sporting facility in my electorate. Built in 1967, it's the oldest drag-racing venue in Australia. Palmyra Dragway has been a local haven for car-racing enthusiasts and spectators alike, with over 50,000 people visiting the track from all over the country.
There are many not-for-profit clubs in Australia like Palmyra Dragway who face ongoing struggles, but the volunteers stay dedicated and hang in there. They tough out the hard times and continue to grow and develop their clubs and their facilities. I'm proud of the way the communities of Capricornia support organisations like this, and I wish the Palmyra Dragway club all the success for future projects.
Fisher Electorate: Inspire Youth Forum
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (16:11): On Saturday, I was honoured to be asked to be a mentor at the Inspire Youth Forum in my electorate of Fisher. This forum is a valuable initiative of Sunshine Coast entrepreneur Vickie Magic which aims to inspire local young people to be happy and successful, and to help them develop critical life skills. More than 200 young people aged between 12 and 27 heard from Vickie herself on achieving success and happiness, from Amy Ratcliffe from McGrath Estate Agents on building self-esteem, and Blase Grinner of Experientia on bringing energy to all you do—and he certainly did that. Dan Fox of Fox Finance taught important money management skills, while David Hendrey of Hendrey Chiropractic shared his view on how to say no to bullies. My friend Kim Morrison of Twenty8, Chris Turner of SunnyKids and Paula Gowland of Suncoast Cleaning Solutions inspired us all with talks about their own life journeys and the importance of fulfilling your own potential.
After each talk, the students on my table discussed the issues raised very thoughtfully and maturely, and showed again how much we can learn from the perspectives of our young Australians. I particularly enjoyed my friendly chats with Dominic and Derek Beaudequin from Siena Catholic College and their mum, Denise. The young people of Fisher are fortunate to have this unique initiative, and I thank Vickie on behalf of our community for a wonderful event.
Influenza Vaccine
Mr MORTON (Tangney) (16:12): It's important we remind our communities to find some time for their good health and that of their family by making sure everyone gets their 2018 flu vaccinations. Flu shots are now available from your GP. Also, pharmacists in Tangney and across the country who have completed vaccine training are able to administer flu shots for adults. It's important to get the flu shot every year, because the virus does change. Many Australians are also eligible for free flu shots under the National Immunisation Program, including people aged 65 years and over. Last year, sadly, people aged over 65 accounted for over 90 per cent of the 1,100 flu-associated deaths. This government has taken specific action to address this.
Two new groundbreaking flu vaccinations are now available specifically for those Australians aged over 65. These are stronger doses, and the flu shot doesn't contain any live viruses, so you can't get the flu from the vaccine. More than 250,000 Australians tested positive for influenza last year and we saw double normal hospitalisations. On Friday, after parliament, I'm off to the pharmacy in Lynwood to get my flu vaccination, and I encourage all people in Tangney to do the same—even if you don't normally. With GPs, local nurses and pharmacists administering vaccinations, there's plenty of availability and convenient times to get the flu shot this year.
McNamara, Mr David John
Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay—Deputy Nationals Whip) (16:14): I rise to pay tribute to David John McNamara, a former police officer who was a loving husband to Karen and a loving father to Megan, Bradley, Kate and Amy. David's engineering career began in Sydney with BHP's BlueScope. He was recognised for his talent and creativity and was promoted to sales manager of the Customtex division. However, his ambition was to be a police officer and, in 1989, he accomplished that dream when he was sworn into the Queensland Police Service as a constable.
David's policing career began in general duties and plain-clothes operations. He was an experienced field training officer. He worked in operational skills and tactics and was a laser and firearms training instructor. David was also a qualified officer in disaster management. In his last six years, he held the privileged position of crime manager of the Gympie region, where he reviewed and monitored progress of investigations, district data quality, maintenance and analysis.
David was a dedicated police officer who served the Queensland Police Service for 25 years, with distinction. He was a humble and selfless man who gave so much of himself to his community. He was taken too soon, with multiple myeloma cancer at the age of 61. He was a good mate to many.
Budget
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (16:15): Deputy Speaker Claydon, as I'm sure you would agree, there is no better state in Australia than Queensland. The importance of Queensland as a state was affirmed in this year's federal budget, where we saw so much money dedicated to infrastructure—well over $5 billion—on new projects. One of those projects, the upgrade of the North Coast Rail Line between Beerburrum and Nambour, will receive a $390-million contribution. This represents 50 per cent of the funding. We rely now on the state government that owns this asset to tip in the remaining 50 per cent for that project. However, the Treasurer for Queensland has made a statement saying that the federal government's contribution is:
… not available for another four to five years, which makes it a bit of a gag, really.
Well, rather than a 'gag', I suggest that Minister Trad's comments are, in fact, a gaffe—at least a mathematical gaffe. If the Treasurer looks at page 140 of the 2018-19 budget paper No. 2, she will see the confirmation of $390 million, and $200 million of that is scheduled for the forward estimates. What we need right now is the Queensland state government to make its commitment. That's the only thing outstanding—make that commitment.
Citrus Canker
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (16:17): Madam Deputy Speaker, I won't put you under pressure like the last speaker did. It's disappointing to hear that citrus canker has again been detected in Australia. Yes, citrus canker has reared its head again—seven times in the last 100 years. Within Flynn, there are some very large citrus farms: 2PH in Emerald and Golden Mile Orchards and Ironbark Citrus in Mundubbera. But there are many, many more big citrus plantations.
In 2004, we saw the wholesale destruction of Emerald's CQ citrus industry. The result was a 50-kilometre radius exclusion zone and the eradication of every citrus tree in the town and surrounding properties. They were pulled out and burned. I've met with Craig Pressler of 2PH Farms on Friday. In 2004, the Pressler operation was crippled by citrus canker. To eradicate canker, some 500,000 trees had to be destroyed in the Emerald area. It was the only way to curtail this incursion. Vigilance and swift action is the key. It's paramount that strict quarantine is followed. We know that canker is on six properties in the Northern Territory and on some properties in Western Australia. I would like to urge the authorities to take the same action that the department took in Emerald in 2004; otherwise, the risk is very high and could see the end of the citrus industry across Australia.
Meals on Wheels
Mr PASIN (Barker) (16:18): More than one in five members in our community volunteer in some form. As this week is National Volunteer Week, I take this opportunity to recognise the valuable role they play in building more resilient and cohesive communities. Last week, I attended an afternoon tea with the Barossa branch of Meals on Wheels to celebrate 50 million meals delivered in South Australia since the organisation began in 1954.
The Meals on Wheels story began in South Australia. It was a South Australian woman by the name of Doris Taylor who first saw the need and sought to address it. Doris Taylor was a vigorous campaigner for the aged and disadvantaged. The idea that those who had trouble shopping and cooking could have a hot meal delivered and, as a result, stay in their homes longer was the basis for the organisation that now has spanned more than six decades and delivered more than 50 million meals in South Australia alone. Today the organisation supports some 5,000 clients each year. It does so thanks to its 9,500 volunteers in 90 branches across my proud state.
Meals on Wheels volunteers are an example of the large and varied army of volunteers, without whom our communities would be much the poorer. I'd like to thank all our generous volunteers for the work they do helping others and strengthening our community. Our community is richer and stronger for your contribution.
Royal Flying Doctor Service
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (16:20): Last Friday night I had the great privilege of attending the 90-year celebration of the Royal Flying Doctor Service in Port Augusta at their hangar at the Port Augusta base. There was great support from the community. There were hundreds of people crammed in the hangar. We had a great meal and a wonderful celebration. It was also a chance to mark the imminent retirement of John Lynch. He has been the Central Operations CEO for the last 18 years. He has been there for 32 years. When John commenced as the CEO 18 years ago, Central Operations assisted over 38,000 patients every year, including 6,000 aeromedical evacuations, and operated 10 medically-equipped aircraft across three aeromedical bases. Today the organisation conducts over 50,000 patient contacts per annum, including 9,000 aeromedical evacuations, and operates a fleet of 18 medically-equipped Pilatus PC12 aircraft across four aeromedical bases and manages three remote primary healthcare facilities in outback SA.
We would be in very dire straits without the Royal Flying Doctor Service. Many of us have benefited from its services. They have not saved my life, but they may have saved my finger when they rushed me to Adelaide after a little accident. I say well done to John, well done to them and well done to all those who turned out in support at that celebration last Friday night.
Employment
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (16:21): Some milestones have been reached of late. We on this side of parliament have reached a million jobs since coming to office. This is nothing to be sneezed at. This is an incredible achievement. We have created one million jobs, taking 75 per cent out of the unemployment queue and into full-time work. In contrast, those on the other side of this chamber have also reached a milestone—$14 million in fines have landed on the doorstep of the unruly CFMEU.
Those one million jobs have come about not by accident. It's not a mistake that we have managed the economy and have the trust of businesses. Most polls in that space show that we have been prudent economic and fiscal managers. It is because we have got our tax settings right. The instant tax write-off was immediately creating jobs in that small business sector. That's where the bulk of these jobs are being provided. 'Lower taxes, jobs and growth' is our mantra.
In contrast, when it comes to the $40 million in fines for the CFMEU, Justice Heydon from the recent royal commission said that they were the most recidivist offenders in corporate history that he could remember. But don't just take his opinion; let's look at Labor stalwarts and bosses. Former Premier of Queensland Peter Beattie suggested that Labor should no longer take donations from the CFMEU. (Time expired)
South Australia: Infrastructure
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (16:23): I was incredibly disappointed to see in the recent budget no new real investment in infrastructure in South Australia. There was some money repurposed, but where did the promise of finishing the north-south corridor within 10 years go? It is just not there in the budget papers in front of us. That was a promise that the new Liberal government made, and they are failing to deliver.
But what has disturbed me even more is the fact that the new Liberal state government, which was elected only two months ago, is putting the brakes on public transport proposals that were seen as important by the previous state government. The worst outcome has been the stalling of the rail extension to Aldinga. It pains me that I received a letter that said:
The new Liberal state government is also proposing a review and update of the public transport strategy. Therefore, the proposal to preserve the future rail corridor has been halted pending the outcome of the review.
This is not good enough. The people of Aldinga and the southern suburbs have been waiting long enough. The previous state government had the plans to go forward with this rail corridor and now the new Liberal government, not backed up by Canberra, is failing to deliver this important project.
Workplace Safety
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (16:25): Workers across the country are dealing with a number of issues—from little to no wage growth and insecure and casualised work to the loss of penalty rates, just to name a few. But an issue not being given enough attention is the falling level of respect given to workers across our country. Many of us were horrified to learn of the sentence given to the low-lifes who attacked Victorian paramedic Paul Judd. Sadly, in the electorate I represent, there have been similar instances of workers being mistreated whilst they go about their jobs—bus drivers being stabbed and spat on, police officers assaulted and abused by juvenile offenders, security guards bashed and nurses and ambos assaulted or threatened with violence—just because they are doing their job and caring for their patients.
All workers have the right to feel safe at work and have the right to go home to their families unharmed. I note the efforts of various unions and professional associations across the country who are saying, 'Enough.' Nobody deserves a serve for doing their job, and our first responders—whose job is hard enough—need the assurance of being protected so that they, in turn, can protect and serve us all in the community. We must ensure that those who serve us are protected and respected.
Visas
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (16:26): Last year, the Turnbull government, in conjunction with Peter Dutton, the minister for the newly formed Department of Home Affairs, announced major changes to Australia's visa processing system—namely, to privatise the design and delivery of all visa services over the next five years. These changes will come into effect from 1 July. It is quite extraordinary that any national government that speaks about the national interest and national security is prepared to transfer that responsibility to the private sector, which, by definition, operates on the basis of profit.
This is a plan that's opposed by the Community and Public Sector Union because it will lose up to 3,000 jobs from the Department of Home Affairs. There are also plans to introduce a tiered visa-delivery system, with premium services available at an additional price. In flat terms, this means that if you can afford to pay more you can skip the visa processing queue, which is another attack on those less fortunate from the coalition. Additionally, the $2 billion in revenue generated by the current system will no longer be available for our schools and hospitals. This is a bad plan. The government needs to walk away from the privatisation of these services.
Aged Care
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (16:28): Jane Grundy provides at-home care for elderly people in my electorate of Macquarie. She's been in parliament today to explain to MPs just how important getting improvements in funding for home care is. She's here with other members of the HSU and United Voice, who provide care in-home and in aged-care facilities. They think it's our turn to care, and they're right. I've also met with members of the Nurses and Midwives' Association, who are so worried about standards in aged care that they want to see ratios in aged care. I support their call. All these people who work in aged care are feeling desperate about the current situation, and what the future might hold.
For those waiting for at-home care, the latest data we have—from way back in December—tells us that more than 100,000 people are on the waiting list. Yet, in the budget the government has offered a measly 14,000 extra packages, but no new money. Data which was released after the budget shows that nearly 300 people are on the national prioritisation queue. They've been waiting there for more than two years, and that's just to get care in their homes. In this budget, there is not a cent more in the forward estimates for aged care, so none of it is new money. That means this budget has been a giant hoax on elderly Australians. As Jane Grundy made the point today, 'If you judge the success of a government on how it treats the vulnerable elderly people in the society it serves, this is a fail.'
Oxley Electorate: Housing
Mr DICK (Oxley) (16:29): I rise today to place on record my strong opposition to a proposed high-rise development in my community at Forest Lake, and to put on record my strong support for the Forest Lake Action Group, who are leading the charge to stop this development from going ahead.
Forest Lake is a beautiful local suburb, which many families, seniors and young couples call home. You'll find the lake buzzing with the voices of children and couples taking their pets for a walk around the lake edge of a late afternoon, as the sun sets over the majestic waters. But now this is under serious threat; an eight-storey development is planned adjacent to the lake, which will overshadow what has always been a scenic community meeting place.
The LNP council has remained silent on this development. The local community campaign to stop this is now in full swing, with almost 500 local residents signing an online petition, and the Forest Lake Action Group encouraging more residents to sign up. I would particularly like to thank the organisers: Hamish Krammer, Darren Haines, Steve Bruford, Lisa Robinson and Greg Huddleston from the Forest Lake Action Group, alongside hardworking local councillor, Charles Strunk, who is at the forefront of this campaign to stop the high rise from going ahead.
I strongly encourage other local residents who are opposed to this development to sign the online petition, which I will link to my Facebook page today. Together we will fight this and together we will win.
Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research
Ms STANLEY (Werriwa) (16:31): In April, I was pleased to visit the Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, which is co-located with Liverpool Hospital, near my electorate.
The institute opened in 2012, fulfilling the vision of Bob Ingham and the Ingham family for a world-class medical research facility in the region he was born and raised in. Mr Ingham came from Casula in my electorate. The location of the institute in an area of rich cultural diversity assists in providing research with a truly global reach.
In its short history, the Ingham institute has accelerated the delivery of many research benefits for our community. Currently employing 370 people, it is looking at traumatic brain injury, diabetes, infectious disease, mental health and cancer. Specific projects include development of a blood test that will assist doctors with early indication of cancer metastases through a patient's body and a new prostate cancer drug, which showed amazing effects in early human trials.
Fostering important partnerships with local area health districts, the University of New South Wales and the University of Western Sydney, the institute is key in the development and growth of the Liverpool Health and Education Precinct. I thank Darryl Harkness and his team for the opportunity to learn more about the work of the Ingham institute and I look forward to more breakthroughs in research.
Scullin Electorate: Ramadan
Mr GILES (Scullin) (16:32): I rise to say Ramadan Mubarak and Ramadan Kareem to every Australian for whom this is a special time, to wish them a happy and also, importantly, a generous Ramadan.
Ramadan, of course, is a period not just of fasting for Islamic Australians but of reflection and also of reaching out—of charity and of generosity. In that spirit, I would like to acknowledge particularly the community of the Thomastown Mosque in the Scullion electorate, who had me along to their iftar dinner on Saturday night. I was informed I am a game's record holder at the Thomastown Mosque iftar, a record that I intend to hold onto jealously, because the sharing that epitomises the community connected to that mosque is something I wish to highlight to this place.
I feel very lucky to be a friend of that community. I know I share that with my state colleague, Lily D'Ambrosio; the Mayor of the City of Whittlesea, Councillor Kris Pavlidis; Councillor Tom Joseph; Victoria Police and business representatives who attended this iftar, along with the attache of the Turkish High Commission, many other adherents of faith locally and the mosque committee.
I would like to thank the committee for all the work they do in bringing together their community and sharing the true spirit of Ramadan with the wider community of Melbourne's northern suburbs.
Lindsay Electorate: National Volunteer Week
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (16:34): This National Volunteer Week, I'd like to give a huge shout out to all of the volunteer groups in my electorate, but particularly to Team Colyton, a phenomenal community group which aims to foster collaborative relationships between residents, businesses and community initiatives in their neighbourhood.
Their achievements range from connecting active community members via regular activities like walking groups and book clubs through to participation in early years and social inclusion weeks. They also help fight for the improvement of Colyton's public spaces through things like graffiti removal, graffiti murals, public artworks, gardens and more seating space at the shops. Team Colyton also hosts the annual Colyton Carols, a community Christmas celebration with beautiful performances from local school kids, as well as different members of church communities and various other community groups. I'd like to thank all of the groups that have supported Team Colyton throughout the years, including Community Junction, Penrith Neighbourhood Renewal and Ability Links. Team Colyton would not be Team Colyton without all of its members, which include local residents, community services, school groups, businesses and council. I sincerely thank everyone in the group for their tireless hard work and advocacy for our entire community. If you live in Colyton, I strongly urge you to get along to one of their meetings, like I did the other day, and you will even get a fabulous shirt that you can wear with absolute pride while you're out there advocating and improving your local community. Thank you.
Kentwell, Mr Alister
Mr SWAN (Lilley) (16:35): I'd like to acknowledge the extraordinary role played by one of my constituents, Mr Alister Kentwell, in the forging of peace as Japanese forces surrendered in Borneo more than 70 years ago. Born an Australia citizen in Kobe, Japan, in 1925, Alister was bilingual from a young age. He was only 18 when he enlisted with the AIF in Brisbane in 1943. On 10 September 1945 Alister's skills placed him at a pivotal point in our wartime history. Photos held by the Australian War Memorial show the young Corporal Kentwell, who was acting as an interpreter for Brigadier Wood, listening intently as Japanese Rear Admiral Nomura spoke during the surrender ceremony in the jungles of Borneo. After hostilities ceased, Alister was assigned as a translator assisting the New Zealand contingent in the British Commonwealth Occupation Force in Japan. He returned to Brisbane in 1947 at the ripe old age of 22.
The Centenary of Armistice is a unique opportunity to reflect on the great weight placed on young soldiers in conflict. I can only marvel at the black-and-white pictures of a calm, collected Corporal Kentwell, taking in his stride the momentous role that he played as the conclusion of the war unfolded. I know his family are incredibly proud of him. On behalf of our community in Lilley, I thank him for his service.
Middle East
Dr ALY (Cowan) (16:37): I rise to make a statement about Australia voting against the UNHCR inquiry into the deaths of Palestinians protesters. I'd like to make it clear that I support Israel's right to exist and that Labor has a history of supporting Israel as well its right to defend itself against aggression. But we also have an obligation to ask questions, even of our friends—and perhaps especially of our friends. Support for Israel does not preclude this. It does not stop us from supporting an investigation into events that resulted in the deaths of 60 people, including women and children.
No matter what side you take on this, people died. People—human beings—were killed. Asking questions and conducting an investigation is not an indictment of guilt, but it is important to demonstrate a concern for the conditions and the events that led to these deaths. As such, the government needs to provide answers as to why it was one of just two countries, along with the United States, to vote against the UNHCR motion. I continue to hope for a lasting peaceful solution where the rights of Israel and the rights of Palestinian are balanced through a two-state solution. I call on both sides to work towards peace. I visited Israel last year and I met with people on the ground who had overcome fear and hatred to work for peace. They provide hope. But hope cannot thrive where violence continues to be the way in which both sides communicate. (Time expired)
Whitlam Electorate: West Dapto
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (16:38): The New South Wales government has a plan to build a jail in West Dapto, one of the biggest urban development areas in New South Wales. It's the wrong plan for the wrong jail in the wrong place. On Saturday I chaired a meeting organised by Anna Watson MP, the member for Shellharbour. Over 300 angry residents attended that meeting. There was nobody speaking in support of the jail.
Let me tell you about West Dapto. It has been gazetted as a growth area for the Illawarra. Over the next 20 years there'll be over 20,000 homes and over 50,000 people in that area. The schools and infrastructure are currently under pressure. Take Dapto Public School for example: 700 students, many of them crammed into demountable classrooms, no plan for a new school—in fact, planning for the area says that over the future years we will need eight new primary schools and two new high schools in the area. The roads in and out of the area need to be upgraded. The government has a plan to put a jail in, but doesn't have a plan to put a new school in. It has a plan to put a jail in, but not a plan to put in new off-ramps on the freeway. It is the wrong plan in the wrong place. The people of West Dapto are angry, and rightfully so. I give my support to those who are campaigning to stop this jail—the wrong jail in the wrong place.
Middle East
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (16:40): This month Palestinians commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Nakba. That is Arabic for catastrophe. During the violence surrounding the establishment of Israel, over 700,000 Palestinians lost their homes, over 400 Palestinian villages and towns were razed, and at least two dozen massacres of Palestinians took place. Seventy years later, Palestinians continue to experience the Nakba: displacement, exile and insecurity. To reflect the horrible reality for many Palestinians today and the presence of the Nakba in their lives, I wish to quote from a recent opinion piece printed in The New York Times by Fadi Abu Shammalah, the executive director of the General Union of Cultural Centers in Gaza and a participant in the recent nonviolent marches in Gaza:
The people in Gaza have been living one tragedy after another: waves of mass displacement, life in squalid refugee camps, a captured economy, restricted access to fishing waters, a strangling siege and three wars in the past nine years. Israel assumed that once the generation who experienced the Nakba died, the youth would relinquish our dream of return.
A number of constituents in the electorate of Herbert are very concerned over the state of affairs in Palestine. This year I am very proud that some of them made their voices heard, with Labor for Palestine marching in the Labour Day march in Townsville for the very first time. I stand today with Mr Shammalah, all Palestinians, and those locally in Australia who are working for a just future. (Time expired)
Canberra Electorate: Vocational Education and Training
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:42): Canberra has a serious skills shortage crisis. Under the Abbott-Turnbull government the number of trainees and apprentices in Canberra has plummeted by 49 per cent—a cut in apprenticeships and traineeships of nearly 50 per cent. In case that figure doesn't resonate with those opposite, I encourage them to ask a Canberran who has called a plumber on the weekend, to discuss with them what it's like, and the shock they received. We're short on bricklayers, early childcare teachers, hairdressers, locksmiths, mechanics. Local businesses cannot fill these positions, even though they try. Instead of investing in skills and vocational education to fix this crisis, the Turnbull government ripped away $270 million funding in the 2018 budget. Not a cent of the $1.5 billion commitment to apprenticeships and TAFEs in last year's budget has been spent. This government preached jobs and growth. That's all we heard. Investing in education—primary, secondary, vocational and tertiary—is absolutely vital to economic growth and quality jobs. What part of that equation does the Turnbull government—and did the Abbott government—not understand? (Time expired)
Middle East
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (16:43): The tragic death of nearly 60 and wounding of hundreds more last week shocked, saddened and horrified me. Human Rights Watch called it a bloodbath. Michael Lynk, the United Nations Special Rapporteur, condemned Israel's excessive use of force towards largely unarmed demonstrators at the Gaza fence. He said:
This blatant excessive use of force by Israel—an eye for an eyelash—must end, and there must be true accountability for those in military and political command who have ordered or allowed this force to be once again employed at the Gaza fence.
In 2018, the year we'll be celebrating the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is shameful that human rights abuses are still being suffered on a daily basis in the West Bank and Gaza. Peaceful protests, wherever they occur, must be allowed to continue. The fundamental right to freedom of expression and assembly must be protected. I urge Israel to show restraint and to de-escalate matters.
It is unthinkable that in a democratic society unarmed protestors are stopped with deadly force. There are strict international prohibitions against lethal force being used against demonstrators. It could breach the fourth Geneva convention. There were 60 human lives lost and 60 families left shattered. Surely, there should be an investigation into this atrocity. The UN called for an independent and impartial investigation into these killings and others killings that have occurred since 30 March. How could this Turnbull government let Australia be one of only two nations to vote against the United Nations' independent inquiry into the killings at the Gaza fence last week? That is a shameful record to have, and I would expect more of the Turnbull government.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ): In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Myanmar: Rakhine State
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (16:45): I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the deteriorating humanitarian crisis that has ensued between the Myanmar security forces in Rakhine State and Rohingya Muslims, since 25 August 2017;
(2) notes with grave concern, evidence from Human Rights Watch of a series of brutal crackdowns carried out by security forces against ethnic Rohingya Muslims, including:
(a) extrajudicial killing;
(b) the torture and suffering of Rohingya women, men and children;
(c) the forced displacement of more than 600,000 Rohingya into Bangladesh;
(d) the destruction, arson and takeover of more than 300 villages by the Myanmar military; and
(e) endemic rape and sexual violence;
(3) further notes:
(a) that Myanmar was home to an estimated 1.3 million Rohingya Muslims;
(b) the long history and persecution of the Rohingya population, including the denial of citizenship under the 1982 Citizenship Law and the denial of most basic government services;
(c) the poor living conditions and widespread inequality facing Rohingya Muslims isolated in Rakhine State and those now living in Bangladesh, including limited access to food, water, shelter, medical treatment and humanitarian assistance; and
(d) that the United Nations and Human Rights Watch have described the situation in Rakhine State as a textbook example of ethnic cleansing;
(4) urges the government of Myanmar to:
(a) recommit to the pursuit of peace and national reconciliation;
(b) allow unfettered humanitarian access to all parts of Rakhine State; and
(c) unconditionally release the two Reuters reporters currently detained in Myanmar; and
(5) echoes the voices of the international community and calls on Australia to:
(a) consider providing additional humanitarian assistance in response to the Rohingya crisis, particularly to assist Bangladesh in responding to the unprecedented levels of Rohingya refugees that have moved across its border;
(b) ensure that the development assistance that Australia provides to Myanmar is appropriately targeted to those most in need, and does not risk contributing to the further suffering of minority groups in Myanmar such as the Rohingya;
(c) exert maximum pressure on the Myanmar authorities to allow independent examination of claims of human rights abuses in Rakhine State, and to hold those responsible for abuses to account; and
(d) continue condemnation of the human rights abuses against the Rohingya.
In moving this motion, so I seek to draw attention to the deteriorating humanitarian situation that has occurred in Rakhine State and principally at the hands of the Myanmar security forces. This has been occurring ever since August 2017. The situation in Myanmar is not merely just violence, abuse or outright neglect but one of atrocities, a human rights crisis of catastrophic proportions that has resulted in the displacement now of over 600,000 Rohingya refugees into neighbouring Bangladesh. The situation has been described by the United Nations and Human Rights Watch as a textbook example of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
I recently had the opportunity to meet with Elaine Pearson, the director of Human Rights Watch, and Richard Weir, the Burma researcher for that organisation. They gave me a horrific account of the treatment that has been afforded to the Rohingya. Their account was most chilling. It was a graphic depiction of the worst of humanity: children being beaten to death, ruthless killings and rapes, all being perpetrated by members of the Myanmar security forces. Based on the interviews conducted by Human Rights Watch and detailed satellite imagery, they have concluded that the military has destroyed, burned and taken over more than 300 villages. Clearly, there have been atrocities committed against the Rohingya, now including evidence of massacres.
It is important to note that discrimination of the Rohingya in Burma does have a long history. Now the government of Myanmar continues to deny the Rohingyas' citizenship along with the provision of basic government services such as health and education. It is this abhorrent denial of basic human rights that has incrementally led to the treatment of the Rohingya more recently. This escalation is now much more than discrimination; it is a campaign of ethnic cleansing.
Bangladesh is not a rich country by any means and is not well equipped to deal with such an influx of refugees given the limited resources and lack of appropriate infrastructure. This makes the Rohingya in Bangladesh completely reliant on humanitarian assistance for basic services. The risk is markedly higher at this time of year with the fast approaching monsoonal season. I acknowledge the hard work of agencies such as Save the Children, UNICEF, Oxfam and many others who are working tirelessly to cater for the basic humanitarian needs of those refugees.
I'm also proud that Australia is playing a crucial part in progressing further diplomatic and humanitarian efforts in Myanmar. However, if we have learnt anything from the past, it must be that much more needs to be done. The task before the Australian government and the United Nations is urgent and requires immediate attention. I call on the government to take a stronger stance with the Myanmar authorities. I call on the government to support the unimpeded humanitarian access to all parts of Rakhine State and refugee camps in Bangladesh. We must work closely with our regional partners to ensure that the government of Myanmar commits to a peaceful resolution and a national reconciliation.
I understand that, given some of the cultural practices, the resettlement of the Rohingya refugees in countries such as Australia would not be without difficulty. This is why we should be placing stronger pressure on the authorities in Myanmar to change their behaviour and hold those responsible to account. In saying this, I call on the government to consider suspending all military training in Myanmar, and to consider targeted sanctions on members of the military implicated in human rights abuses, as applied by other Commonwealth jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom and Canada.
Two decades ago the international community watched in horror as Rwanda was pulled apart by a brutal genocide. Collectively it said, 'Never again.' But today we are seeing these lessons unfold once again. We cannot merely be bystanders. I ask the House to note the words of the social justice advocate and former South African Archbishop, Desmond Tutu, who said, 'If you are neutral in a situation of injustice, you have just chosen the side of the oppressor.'
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (16:50): I second the motion. It is a great privilege to speak following the member for Fowler, who has spent so much time in his parliamentary career advocating for issues like this one. What we are speaking about today is one of the most extraordinary human rights abuses that we have seen in recent decades in South-East Asia. The member for Fowler and I share a mutual passion for the subject. We have big Cambodian and Vietnamese communities, and we have growing Rohingyan communities. That's why it's a real pleasure to be able to express their incredibly strong feelings about the matter that we talking about today.
The escalating human rights crisis in Rakhine state, perpetrated by members of the Myanmar security forces, has been ongoing since August 2017. I have the great privilege of representing somewhere around 1,000 Rohingya people in my electorate of Hotham. I meet with them regularly, and I try to do the things that we do as local members of parliament. I connect them into community organisations, I support them getting active, getting involved and getting organised in their local area. But when I ask them what the most important thing is that I can help them with as a member of parliament, it is doing the thing I am doing right now—providing them with a voice. What they are desperately concerned about is the family and friends, the communities, the villages, that are being devastated by violence, by ruthless extermination of people who are doing nothing else but being of a particular ethnic origin that these security forces don't like. It is gut-wrenching to sit down with these people as they will literally cry tears of pain and talk about the things that are happening and what's going on back home. They want us to speak up as parliamentarians, because this sort of violence is unacceptable. It's unacceptable here; it's unacceptable anywhere in the world. We need to make sure we speak with one voice and make that clear.
The torture and the suffering of Rohingyan men, women and children is still continuing to date. We know that at least 300 villages have been completely destroyed by the military presence there. There is endemic rape and sexual violence against women. In one week 3,000 people were killed and more than 52 villages were burned and destroyed. As you would know, Deputy Speaker, the United Nations tries to speak without making too much fuss, law I suppose you could say, in what it says about issues like this, but it has described the situation in Rakhine state as a textbook example of ethnic cleansing. These are extremely strong words to be used by the United Nations. We know that almost 700,000 Rohingya have fled to Bangladesh since August 2017, and they're in refugee camps now. There are 200,000 Rohingya who are languishing in these camps, some of whom are living in absolutely intolerable conditions. They have limited access to food, water, shelter, medical treatment and humanitarian assistance. Deputy Speaker, something that I know strikes you in the heart, as it does me, is that a very large majority of the people living in these camps are women and children. They face threats, including that of being human-trafficked and of sexual abuse.
It is a massive humanitarian crisis. Even though we are very well aware of what's going on from our standpoint in Australia, the limited response from the Australian government has been very disappointing. I think $5 million was offered initially for the emergency relief effort. Seven hundred thousand people have been displaced by this crisis, so I think we can agree that $5 million is not going to go too far. In October 2017 the government committed a further $10 million. But it is so clear to me, and so clear to the people who I represent, that we can and we must do more to help with this crisis. This is the fastest-growing refugee and humanitarian crisis in the world right now.
On 13 September last year, the UN Security Council agreed on a pretty strongly-worded statement on Myanmar, condemning the violence in the Rakhine region. It was the first time they'd done so in nine years. The United Nations Association of Australia has called on the Australian government to intensify our diplomatic efforts to try to help resolve this, and I want to join in those calls. As Australians, we have an important, respected voice in this region. We can't stand by while people who are our neighbours in South-East Asia are treated in this way. There are people there who are being treated in ways worse than anything, really, that we could imagine. I think we need to be doing a lot more to speak up, and I do so today on behalf of my Rohingyan residents.
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (16:56): Firstly, I want to acknowledge and thank the member for Fowler for bringing this heartfelt motion before the chamber. Can I say to the member for Fowler that more recently, when a delegation from this place attended Vietnam for the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum, the issue was debated rigorously there by our Asian neighbours. It was only just at that stage that I got a sense of the magnitude of the issue that's before us. Without being coy or disrespectful, I would suggest that if I were to walk up the main street of most of the small regional communities in my electorate and ask them to give me an overview of what's going on with the Rohingyan community, they would be blind to the atrocities that the member for Fowler shared with the House so eloquently. So on behalf of the government I want to stand and acknowledge the contribution that he has made in raising this as an issue in the House.
It is an issue that I do not profess to be a specialist in. Rather, I would speak openly to suggest that there would be very few in this place who would not have compassion, as Australians, for that community being persecuted. From a more affirmative perspective, the Bangladeshi community—a poor community within its own capacity— are doing an amazing job to be housing these people on their border. It can bring a sense of embarrassment to a country full of riches.
In closing, I'd just like to acknowledge the member for Fowler for bringing this to the attention of the House.
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (16:58): I, too, rise to support the motion moved by the member for Fowler, which really discusses an issue that we should be discussing in this place. Some would describe it as the genocide of a people.
This motion notes, with appropriate and grave concern, evidence from Human Rights Watch about a series of brutal crackdowns carried out by security forces against ethnic Rohingya Muslims, including, as has been mentioned: extrajudicial killing; the torture and suffering of Rohingya men, women and children; the forced displacement of more than 688,000 Rohingyan Muslims into Bangladesh; the destruction, arson and takeover of more than 300 villages by the Myanmar military; and endemic rape and sexual violence.
The Rohingya are a stateless Muslim minority in Myanmar. Myanmar was home to an estimated 1.3 million Rohingya Muslims. There has been a long history of persecution of the Rohingya population, including the denial of citizenship under a 1982 citizenship law and the denial of the most basic government services. According to Human Rights Watch, the current military government denies that the Rohingya are an ethnic group and claims that Muslims in Arakan Province are Bengalis whose arrival is fairly recent. It takes the view that the migration that took place during the period of British colonial rule was illegal, and it is on this basis that it refuses citizenship to the majority of the Rohingya. In reality, the Rohingya have had a well-established presence in what is now Burma since at least the 12th century. Rohingya political leaders claim that the Rohingya are an ethnically distinct group, descendants of the first Muslims who began migrating to northern Arakan in the eighth century. The United Nations and Human Rights Watch have described the situation in the Rakhine state, over recent years—and I would endorse this—as a 'textbook example of ethnic cleansing', which has led to thousands of Rohingya Muslims having to flee as refugees.
One of the things that I note—and I think the member for Wright was talking about this in relation to people in his part of the world—is that quite a substantial population of the Muslim faith live in my constituency. When I ask them about issues that concern them, the persecution of these people without the world taking action is something that disturbs them greatly. It is hard to describe, just as we struggled to describe the massacres in Africa, particularly in Rwanda.
One of the things that always concerns me—and I support this motion wholeheartedly—is that a concept was advocated by my very distinguished predecessor, Gareth Evans, when he was foreign affairs minister and afterwards, which is the concept that was used in Libya of the right to protect a civilian population of a country when genocide is being committed against its own people. That was invoked as part of the reason for taking military action in Libya, which then led to the overthrow of Gaddafi. My question is—and I would put this question to the same situation in Syria, when its ethnic population of 300,000 people were killed by their own government—why is the international community watching large-scale ethnic cleansing in Asia? It is unacceptable to me that this action is being taken while the world watches on, virtually powerless. We should call what is occurring in that place what it is: genocide. It is genocide in a country which is not far away from us and with which we have historic connections. Thus, as international citizens, as a middle power, we have an obligation to take action.
My view is—and I put this forward not as a Labor Party policy but as an individual watching this genocide, with a growing sense of horror and dismay—that there should be some United Nations action invoked under the right to protect that population, because that is not occurring. I would urge the government, in a respectful way, in a bipartisan way, to take that action. It would show real leadership, which we should be showing in this region. We can't allow this sort of inhumanity to continue, particularly in this region but anywhere in the world. So, in supporting the member's motion, I would urge the government to take action under the provisions of the right to protect, to advocate for that, so that these people can no longer be wiped from the face of the planet, as they are now.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (17:03): I commend the member for Fowler for bringing this motion forward, and the members for Hotham and Holt for speaking on it and also, in anticipation, the member for Cowan. But I particularly commend the member for Wright, who I think we'd all agree has a big heart and great compassion. I commend him for supporting this motion—without trying to curry favour of the chair, of course, Deputy Speaker.
This is a serious matter, as we know. The world has watched in horror as nearly 700,000 Rohingyas have fled their persecutors in the northern Rakhine province of Myanmar over the last nine months or more. Nearly 700,000 refugees have sought a safe haven across the Bangladeshi border in Cox's Bazar, a community that was already under stress before they arrived exhausted and traumatised. More than half of the Rohingya refugees are women and children. Hundreds of children have been separated from their families and are particularly vulnerable. The suffering we are witnessing is on a catastrophic scale. It's the fastest-growing refugee crisis in the world.
The Rohingyas are an ethnic minority in Myanmar. The United Nations has described the military offences in Rakhine as a 'textbook example of ethnic cleansing'. The Rohingya refugees have reported house-by-house killings, women and children being raped, homes and villages burnt to the ground. To say that Cox's Bazar is overcrowded is an understatement—almost 100,000 refugees have been treated for malnutrition. They are in desperate need of food, shelter, health care and water. This is a humanitarian crisis on a grand scale.
Many people in my electorate of Moreton are concerned about the Rohingya people. In fact, last year I met with members of the Bangladeshi community who live in my electorate of Moreton and also the neighbouring electorate of Rankin: Adjunct Professor Adil Khan, Professor Reza Monem, Mr Azharul Karim, Dr Asad Khan, Adjunct Professor Iyanatul Islam and Dr Mazhar Hague, to name a few who were present. They presented me with a petition calling on this House to do all it can to persuade the Myanmar government: to establish a UN led or independent investigation into these allegations of genocide and human rights violations, to immediately stop the genocide and killing of innocent people, and to ensure that the rights of the Rohingya minority are respected. The atrocities committed against the Rohingya community in Rakhine state are almost beyond comprehension. These human rights abuses are unforgivable, and I hope that the perpetrators are brought to account. It may take time, but we should be relentless in pursuing those responsible for the atrocities.
Sadly, these refugees, having fled extreme violence, are now highly vulnerable to a new danger: disease from a lack of basic services in the camps. They are reliant on humanitarian assistance, and it is crucial that there is unimpeded humanitarian access to the camps in Bangladesh and that regional partners, including Australia, work together in response to this crisis to ensure that the Rohingya population has a safe and secure place to live in peace.
Labor has made formal representations to the Prime Minister and the foreign minister to do everything in the Turnbull government's power to respond to this escalating humanitarian crisis that is taking place in our backyard. We must speak up to set an example to the rest—not only to ASEAN countries, but to those in our backyard. So I make this request again to the Turnbull government to turn their gaze to the Rohingya crisis.
Dr ALY (Cowan) (17:07): I also rise to thank the member for Fowler for moving this motion today, but also to acknowledge the speakers on both sides who have spoken before me on this motion. Last week, my husband and I watched the Dateline special that exposed what is happening among the Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine state. Being in this place, you do have a sense of it—being on some of the committees in which we received briefings about what is going on there—but I have to say that the images we saw on the television that night were really unexpected and, actually, quite harrowing. They showed the extent and the magnitude of the situation—the killings, the rapes and the arson. It is a situation that can only be described as systemic genocide.
The member for Wright gave such a heartfelt speech just a few minutes ago, and said that most Australians wouldn't know about what's going on in Myanmar. I would have to agree with that. I think the Rohingya are at risk of being the forgotten people in our region, the people who we don't talk about, the people who are unseen, the people who are being persecuted and the people who are suffering from a genocide against them, but the people who the world has turned a blind eye to. Human rights organisations and the media are denied access to accurately report on the situation and what is going on there. There is denial of the atrocities by the Myanmar leadership, and this is particularly disheartening considering the history of Myanmar and the fight for human rights and democracy by the leadership there.
On ending this, I should also make a point on how social media has been used by the state of Myanmar to distribute propaganda against the Rohingya in the Rakhine state. This is something that has been brought up by several media outlets. It stands as a stark warning to all of us that we need to look beyond propaganda and see the humanity in each other—it doesn't matter where you come from, what religion you are or what ethnicity you are.
I hope that today's motion, and the number of members who have spoken on this motion, will go some way to giving some kind of reassurance to people in Rakhine state that we are listening. We are here, we are listening, we see you and we will continue to speak on your behalf to make sure that the military and government of Myanmar are held accountable for what the people are going through.
Debate adjourned.
M1 Motorway Funding
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (17:10): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that the Australian Government:
(a) is acting to provide critical upgrades to the M1 Motorway to deliver safer, less congested roads for the people of Queensland, which will mean people spend less time in traffic and more time with their families;
(b) is delivering a $1 billion upgrade including between Varsity Lakes and Tugun on the Gold Coast end of the M1 corridor, and between Eight Mile Plains and Daisy Hill within the Brisbane urban area; and
(c) has previously committed funding to two projects on the M1 which are scheduled to commence construction in coming weeks, being:
(i) $115 million for the M1 Pacific Motorway-Gateway Merge; and
(ii) $110 million for the M1 Pacific Motorway-Mudgeeraba to Varsity Lakes project; and
(2) calls on the Queensland Government to match the funding on a 50:50 basis.
It's a pleasure to stand in this House and speak about the funding commitment of the federal coalition government to the M1. Leading up to the 2018 budget, I was very pleased to be joined in my electorate by Prime Minister Turnbull to announce $1 billion to be provided in the budget for critical M1 upgrades. I was also joined by my good friend the member for Fadden, who is here in the chamber today.
This is a tremendous win for commuters and businesses not only in my electorate of Forde but in the surrounding electorates, where many commuters struggle with daily gridlock. However, this result would not have been possible without the thousands of supporters who put their name to my Fix the M1 campaign. I'm proud to say that the petition, the bumper stickers, the speeches and the stories from businesses and people affected by congestion has been heard loud and clear by the Turnbull government. And I'm pleased to say that the good member for Moreton, sitting across the chamber here, is very happy with this announcement, I have no doubt, as it will benefit his electorate as well.
In this year's budget we put fixing the M1 Motorway in Logan at the top of our government's priority list. So, thank you to everyone who supported our Fix the M1 campaign. The billion-dollar coalition government investment will mean people spend less time in traffic and more time with their families, and it will improve the quality of life for residents in South East Queensland. The billion-dollar commitment will fund construction of two high-priority upgrade projects: one, the stretch between Eight Mile Plains and Daisy Hill, within the Logan and Brisbane urban areas, and the other between Varsity Lakes and Tugun on the Gold Coast, at the southern end of the M1 corridor. The Eight Mile Plains to Daisy Hill project is expected to include widening the motorway from six to eight lanes, ramp consolidation, managed motorways technology, extending the busway to Springwood, supporting bus priority south of Springwood, and better active transport connections between centres along the corridor. The Varsity Lakes to Tugun project is expected to include widening of both the northbound and southbound carriageways to six lanes, a direct northbound off-ramp from the M1 to Southport-Burleigh Road, and ramp upgrades, with ramp controls, extra lanes, pavement reconstruction works, and better cycling and walking connections between centres.
The M1 is one of the most important and heavily congested routes in Queensland, with nearly 30 million tonnes of freight moving between New South Wales and Queensland each year and between 50,000 and 155,000 vehicles per day using the M1, from Springwood to Tugun. These upgrades will help people get home safer and sooner.
I'm proud to say the Turnbull government is funding the roads the people of South East Queensland need, and we're doing it because of our careful budget management. During the 2016 election, the Turnbull government also committed $225 million for two projects that mark stage 1 of these significant upgrades to the M1. These include the $115 million for the M1 Pacific Motorway and Gateway Motorway merge and $110 million for the M1 Pacific Motorway Mudgeeraba to Varsity Lakes project.
I'm pleased to say that it appears the Queensland government is set to announce in their budget later this week that they will commit to matching the federal government's funding on the M1, which is tremendous news for the people of South East Queensland. These vital upgrades to the M1 will reduce congestion and improve the quality of life for the people in my electorate of Forde. This congestion-busting solution to the M1 congestion on the Logan Motorway and Gold Coast Highway is extremely important.
When we met with Bill Leavey from True Blue Glass last week, a small business owner whose employees regularly travel the M1, he explained the importance of this project in allowing his employees to be more efficient and more effective and get to their jobs more quickly so they can do more in a day. But it is not only that: they will get to their jobs more safely. I commend this funding of $1 billion on the M1 by a coalition federal government that has set the stage for major upgrades for this stretch of road.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Howarth ): Is there a seconder for the member's motion?
Mr Robert: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (17:16): It's nice to see that this month the Queensland Liberal Party and National Party have finally discovered congestion on the M1. The Liberal Party and National Party have been in government since September 2013. Well done, Rip Van Winkle! Well done. I hope you enjoyed your nice five-year nap. I know you needed to have a shave when you did wake up, but I do acknowledge that you are putting some money into this vital piece of infrastructure after years of ignoring the needs of Queenslanders, years of ignoring critical Queensland infrastructure and years of ignoring the desperate need for upgrades to the M1. The member for Forde actually started a petition to petition himself—that's what I loved! I loved that: a petition where he's saying, 'You should talk to the member for Forde.' It was a petition organised by the member for Forde to petition himself. That's great! It's great to see the member for Forde finally pipe up with this motion.
The Liberal Party and National Party have been dragged kicking and screaming into funding the M1 upgrade. It's great to see the member for Grayndler in here for this motion. I look forward to his comments on the member for Forde's motion. It's great to see the Liberal Party and National Party now pipe up after five years and give us a lecture on infrastructure spending. What a joke! There has been an out-of-touch government over the last five years and suddenly, in this budget and in the lead-up to an election, they announce a little bit. This money should have been invested in the M1 upgrade and it should be almost on the way to a ribbon-cutting ceremony. Instead, we've got an out-of-touch government that has disappointed Queenslanders and put a handbrake on productivity.
We have seen their record on full display: announcing and then reannouncing projects in Dickson and Longman on the Bruce Highway. You can keep announcing projects over and over again, but the people of Queensland are wising up. They are onto you. When the Liberal Party and National Party announce infrastructure spending, Queenslanders know now to look for the smoke and to look for the mirrors.
What about the Cross River Rail in that budget? What about the Cross River Rail? The member for Forde, when he talked about congestion in his speech, seemed to forget Cross River Rail, something that Infrastructure Australia said was the No. 1 priority. The Treasurer forgot it and the Prime Minister forgot it in their budget. The Cross River Rail would actually almost be complete by now if the funding wasn't slashed in the 2014 budget. I know the member for Grayndler would remember that the project was signed off by the former Campbell Newman government's transport minister, Scott Emerson. I remember you had the letter from Scott Emerson before the press conference, but then he put the kibosh on it. It's all about priorities.
When it comes to funding critical infrastructure, we have seen Queensland done over. However, the government has still got that commitment to giving $80 billion to big business, multinationals and big banks—but not for Queensland infrastructure. Let me restate our policy from the last election with regards to the M1. Labor will spend $1 billion making sure that we have an eight-lane freeway between my electorate of Moreton and Eight Mile Plains through to Daisy Hill. We'll widen it to a six-lane freeway between Varsity Lakes and Tugun. Labor will do everything we can to take the politics out of infrastructure, and that's why we're still inviting the Turnbull government to match what we're saying on the Cross River Rail.
Unfortunately, there's a slight problem with the federal government's $1 billion commitment—more than 80 per cent of the funding committed by the coalition won't flow until after the 2022-23 budget. The Palaszczuk Labor government is pulling money forward to ensure this vital work starts immediately. Just last weekend, the Queensland Labor government announced an $897 million commitment to the M1—part of a $45 billion statewide infrastructure plan that will create over 38,000 Queensland jobs annually. That's someone that understands Queensland. We have to keep investing to make sure that southsiders can get home faster and spend more time doing the things they enjoy, instead of being stuck in traffic, pumping particulate matter out into the atmosphere.
In supporting the M1 upgrade but ignoring the Cross River Rail project, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are only doing half the job. Obviously, when completed—as it eventually will be under Labor—the Cross River Rail will remove current bottlenecks by doubling the capacity along the Brisbane River, allowing more trains to run more often along every major train line. It's also why we need to fund the Coopers Plain rail crossing. That's why I'm asking the local government—Lord Mayor Graham Quirk—the state government and the federal government, to fund a third, a third, a third. That's my suggested solution. What could be fairer in terms of getting things sorted? This is not arguing about the politics of it, just being fair. If there are more trains going down to the Gold Coast, the bottleneck at Coopers Plains, which has been inspected by the member for Grayndler, will be a lot worse.
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (17:21): I support and fully endorse the motion moved by the member for Forde and congratulate him on the tireless work that he's been doing for his community and for infrastructure funding in Queensland. The member Forde and I, along with the members for McPherson and Moncrieff and many of our Brisbane based members of parliament, have fought particularly hard to deliver better infrastructure services for our communities—especially with the M1 funding. That's why this is an extraordinary budget that's boosting infrastructure with a billion dollars on the table to complete the M1—to complete it.
A bit of history is always instructive. The M1, as we know it, was finalised in the last days of the Borbidge government, who signed off on the contracts to get that road up and running. Premier Borbidge would tell the story that, at the time, the bureaucracy said only three lanes would be needed each way, but it was the Borbidge government that insisted that, for most of it, it would be four lanes. This budget shows that what Premier Borbidge started, this government—the Turnbull government—will finish. There is a billion dollars on the table to finish it—waiting, of course, for the Labor government of Queensland to back up and respond with the same funding. That is a fifty-fifty deal—that's pretty generous—to get the M1 complete.
This is a budget that makes it very clear it's about making life easier and, frankly, more pleasant for Australians and their families, especially in getting to and from work. We have one billion congestion-busting dollars on the table for the M1. It's about getting people home safer. It's about getting them home sooner. And it's actually a good plan. It was the member for Grayndler, when he was minister, who taught me what the N1 was. He dragged me into his office and pointed out the N1, being the Newell Highway, and made it specifically clear to me that the M1 is not the N1, that different funding arrangements are there for the M1. He made it very clear. He had a big map on the wall—of course, the map he inherited from the previous minister. And I make the point everywhere I go that the Newell Highway is an 80-20, federally—no problem at all—but the M1 is not part of the N1, which is why the fifty-fifty deal is the right deal to do.
The situation with the M1 is somewhat reminiscent of the funding and support for the Australian film industry. The Queensland state Labor government was screaming from the rooftops that the Turnbull government had abandoned the film industry. Yet the Labor government in Queensland was putting in a couple of million and we were putting in almost a hundred million. In the end, we delivered what was required—what the local film industry needed—an effective tax offset at 30 per cent. But, again, the Queensland state Labor government, unfortunately, has not put in anything. However, the motion pertains to the M1. There's a billion dollars on the table. Premier Palaszczuk should simply match the billion dollars, and we should all get on with completing a necessary project, the M1, from the Tugun Bypass through to the entrance to Brisbane—get it finished and done once and for all.
I'm also delighted to see within the budget the Roads to Recovery Program providing immediate relief for traffic congestion in my community, some $12 million to solve simple things: roundabouts at roads, intersections at parts of our street network. You can argue it's a state or local responsibility, but sometimes we have to step in to fix some of these things. We have provided funds to ease traffic congestion at Burnside Road, on the Pacific Motorway service road between Ormeau and Yatala. This two-stage project upgrades and reconstructs the existing road to an industrial collector and extends along Burnside Road from the Pacific Motorway service road to Christensen Road. This project, due for completion in September this year, will support growth of the surrounding industrial area. We've also provided funds for Stanmore Road in Yatala between Enkleman Road and Peachy Road, which will see Stanmore Road upgraded to a four-lane dual carriageway. The upgrade is required to cater for the predicted increase in traffic volume caused by the continuing growth of the Yatala Enterprise Area. In Queensland the Turnbull government is investing a record $20.4 billion in infrastructure, an impressive amount. This money will benefit and support my community and so many communities not just on the Gold Coast but in the south-east corner. Once again I call upon the state Labor Palaszczuk government in Queensland to come to the table. We have a billion dollars there. Come and join us, and let's complete the M1.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (17:26): I rise to make a contribution to this debate about infrastructure in South East Queensland. I move an amendment:
That all words after 1(b) be deleted and replaced with the following:
"(c) regrets that only 1 per cent of this Federal funding is available in 2018-19;
(d) also regrets that 85 per cent of the Federal funding is outside the four-year forward estimates; and
(e) calls upon the Government to not fund projects into the never never."
I raise this because you hear a lot of rhetoric from those opposite about infrastructure. The fact is, though, that they have been asleep for the last five years. They haven't funded projects. Indeed, they haven't even put back the money they've cut from projects such as Cross River Rail. They had an opportunity in this budget to undo the damage done by that cut in the 2014 budget. When it comes to this project, less than one per cent of the $1 billion is available for these two projects on the M1 in the next financial year, and across the four years of the forward estimates only 15 per cent of the funding is there. It's typical of what this government says: 'If you re-elect us next year and in three years time then something might happen after that.'
It is quite pathetic and stands in stark contrast to what we did when in office. We increased annual spending on infrastructure from $146 for every Queenslander to $270 for every Queenslander. Under our program we committed and invested some $6.3 billion in South East Queensland, more than the Howard government had spent over a similar time across the entire state. That included upgrades: $420 million for the Pacific Motorway on the Gold Coast, $195 million for the Bruce Highway on the Sunshine Coast, and $2½ billion for the Ipswich Motorway. We also invested in rail and light rail. The Redcliffe rail line, first promised in 1895, was delivered by a federal Labor government working with Queensland Labor and the local council. Importantly, the Gold Coast Light Rail, such a success in getting people around during the recent Commonwealth Games, was funded with $365 million from the Commonwealth, an investment that made a real difference in real time.
We also invested in community infrastructure in South East Queensland, including, of course, on the Gold Coast at the stadium where the Commonwealth Games were held. That was some $37 million—the largest grant out of the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. Not only has funding been cut by this government; they haven't spent the money that has been allocated to them in the budget. Whether it's major road projects, the black spots, the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program, the Northern Australia Roads Program—all of these have seen massive underspends by the coalition government: some $4½ billion of underspends over their first four budgets. The fact is that we have called for this funding to be invested on the M1 because this is a congested corridor. The need to fix the Pacific Motorway to Gateway merge; the need for the Mudgeeraba to Varsity Lakes project; these are important projects, as well as the upgrades between Varsity Lakes and Tugun and between Eight Mile Plains and Daisy Hill. These are all critical projects. It is only Labor, though, that invests in nation-building infrastructure, whether it be roads, rail or light rail. That's why Queenslanders are increasingly sceptical about the gap between this government's rhetoric and its actual investment.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): The member for Grayndler is seeking to move an amendment to the member for Forde's motion. Is the motion seconded?
Mrs Elliot: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is now that the amendment be agreed to.
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (17:31): This is fantastic news for locals in my electorate. My Queensland LNP colleagues and I have been fighting hard for this funding. People have been telling us just how bad congestion is on the M1 and how dangerous it can be on their daily commute. I've been hearing the same story across Bonner. It is people power that has secured this funding for the M1 as well as for the Brisbane Metro. It's people power that I'm sure will lock in funding for two other critical projects that I'm fighting for in Bonner. One billion dollars in funding—what an outcome! I must thank the member for Forde for leading this fight, and my constituents who get at stuck at the M1-Gateway merge every afternoon certainly will.
Many people have told me how thrilled they are with this outcome. It means they'll be able to get home to their families sooner and safer. I know the coalition's campaign and the community's angst about these commitments is what finally drove the Queensland government to commit to match our federal commitment and deliver for the people of South East Queensland. And now $300 million for Brisbane Metro—another awesome outcome that will reduce congestion for Bonner constituents. I have tirelessly campaigned for this funding with Trevor Evans, the member for Brisbane. It's another funding commitment that shows the coalition government is listening to locals. Then there is the $10 million I helped secure with the member for Bowman. This funding will help upgrade the Green Camp Road corridor, including the notorious Green Camp Road-Rickett Road intersection. More congestion busted; more people who enjoy a much safer drive, whether it's to school pick-up or work.
That's why I'm now fighting hard for two other critical road projects in Bonner. I know the government is listening. Locals are asking us to invest in critical infrastructure to reduce congestion and improve safety, and that's exactly what we're doing. It's what we'll continue to do for dangerous black spots like the Lindum station crossing. Recently over 4,000 locals signed my petition to fix this dangerous intersection. Last week the Minister for Infrastructure came to inspect the Lindum crossing in person and to discuss the new Urban Congestion Fund announced in the budget this month. We are investing $1 billion in congestion-busting projects like the Lindum station crossing. I also took the minister to the Newnham Road and Wecker Road intersection at Mount Gravatt East. This is another notorious intersection in my electorate. The RACQ recently named this intersection as one of the worst in Brisbane for serious crashes and casualties. The minister agrees it's an absolute hazard. I've started a community petition calling for funding to fix the Newnham Road-Wecker Road intersection. It has already gathered almost 1,000 signatures. It's people power in action again.
Works have now started on the M1 Gateway merge upgrade and the Green Camp Road corridor upgrade. Brisbane City Council expects tenders for the Brisbane Metro will go out as early as the second half of this year. I'm proud to have secured funding for these vital projects to get my constituents home sooner and safer. I'm fighting just as hard for the funding to fix the Lindum crossing and Newnham Road intersection.
Mr DICK (Oxley) (17:35): We just heard sad stories from the member for Bonner and the member for Forde. They demonstrate how completely out of touch they are when it comes to Queensland federal infrastructure funding. I stand here to proudly and strongly support the member for Grayndler's amendment. In this debate today we know that the government would like to have a pat on the back for their record so-called delivery of infrastructure. But we know, despite comments from the Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities that it would make sense to be ready to roll on the next two key M1 projects after completion of the two that are now underway—expected to be around 2020—they've back ended their funding out beyond the forward estimates. That means that, out of the $1 billion in funding—and we've just heard lecture after lecture from government members—$845 million isn't even in this budget. It is not the case that this government is spending $1 billion. The fact is that in this budget only $155 million of federal funding has been provided for the M1 Pacific Motorway.
The member for Rankin has led the debate on this and has stood up to this government time and time again to make sure that residents of the southern suburbs of Brisbane get a fair go. We know that, when it comes to the delivery of infrastructure, this government is not fair dinkum. Queenslanders deserve better. It's time that those opposite who pretend to represent Queensland started to fight for Queensland.
We need look no further than the actions of Labor leader Bill Shorten and what he has committed to. Only a few weeks ago the opposition leader was in Queensland. He stood proudly to announce that only a Shorten Labor government would match the government spending of $1 billion to make sure that we do have congestion fixed along the Eight Mile Plains to Daisy Hill area and we have widened to six lanes the freeway between Varsity Lakes and Tugun. More importantly, he stood in Brisbane, alongside the member for Griffith and the member for Moreton, and announced that we would go one step further and fund Cross River Rail.
We know talk is cheap when it comes to the government. The No. 1 infrastructure project in Australia is demanding action that only Labor will deliver. Time and time again we've seen residents call for action. We've seen the state government, under Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk and Deputy Premier Jackie Trad, put the shoulder to the wheel to make sure that Cross River Rail becomes a reality.
We know the importance of critical infrastructure funding. For 13 long years under the Howard government, not one cent was spent in my own community on upgrades to the Ipswich Motorway, which runs through the electorate of Oxley. It took the election of the Labor government in 2007 to make sure that $3 billion was invested in that project. Year after year we saw neglect from the coalition government. It took a Labor government to deliver that critical project. When Labor funded that project we knew that capacity along the Ipswich Motorway would go up to 180,000 vehicles.
Labor plans for the future. Cross River Rail not only will ease congestion for motorists but is expected to create around 7,700 jobs during construction and 550 jobs afterwards. I congratulate the state Labor government and I thank the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, for making that commitment to make sure that residents who live in the south-west of Brisbane and right across Brisbane will benefit from that congestion-busting project. The residents that I represent, and all throughout Brisbane, know that only Labor can be trusted to deliver that critical infrastructure.
In particular, I want to acknowledge the Queensland Premier and her team on providing the leadership that is needed for infrastructure in our state. This is a particularly strong partnership that will require a strong state Labor government and, indeed, a federal Labor government.
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (17:40): I rise, of course, to support the motion moved by the shadow minister for infrastructure.
As the amendment says, 85 per cent of the funding that's supposedly being committed for the M1 falls outside the forward estimates period. Queenslanders cannot believe that this government will actually deliver on the money that is supposedly being committed by this federal government. When you hear the member for Bonner stand up and talk about busting congestion on the south side, you might be excused for being a bit sceptical about that, because the No. 1 project that would bust congestion on the south side is Cross River Rail. This government took the federal funding off the table for Cross River Rail when it was first elected. We haven't seen federal funding for it in any meaningful amount—enough to actually fund some of this infrastructure—ever since. The Queensland government is pushing ahead with Cross River Rail, and I congratulate them, but the fact is that what it would really take to deliver it as soon as possible is for the Turnbull government to stump up some cash.
As this chamber has already heard, and in very stark contrast, the opposition has pledged serious money for Cross River Rail. Cross River Rail is a project that would actually bust congestion. If you got people off the roads and onto public transport by giving them an opportunity to be able to get public transport that would deliver them to the CBD and to work as soon as possible, then that would, quite obviously, reduce the congestion on the roads and would, also quite obviously, assist people with getting from the suburbs into the CBD, to where their jobs are, as soon as possible.
So I'm very pleased that Labor has announced that if we're elected at the next federal election we'll commit $2.42 billion over the life of the project to make sure that it can happen. I was very pleased to be at the announcement, along with the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for infrastructure, and also with my very good friend the member for Moreton. Of course, although most of the project will fall within my electorate, it will also affect his electorate. It will also affect the member for Bonner's electorate, because if you lived on the Cleveland line or along the rail line, you would know that it is absolutely ridiculous trying to get into the CBD at peak hour in Brisbane. If you live in Wynnum, if you live in Manly or if you live in Tingalpa and you try to drive along Wynnum Road, or Lytton Road even, to try to get into the CBD at peak hour, you'll know what I'm talking about. If we can actually provide people with a public transport alternative, that will help people to use more public transport and it will also help to clear up congestion on Brisbane's roads.
It is absolutely appropriate to say that the Commonwealth should be pulling its weight when it comes to funding public transport projects like Cross River Rail. Cross River Rail has been around for a very long time. It's been assessed and assessed and assessed. It's a key project that will affect the commuters who live in my electorate and also those who live in Moreton and in Bonner. If Cross River Rail is built, there will be 9,000 extra passenger journeys per day. What it will mean in real terms is that if you live on the Gold Coast or in Beenleigh, this will cut 15 minutes off your commute.
Congestion is a massive problem in my city and it's a massive problem in my electorate. I know that people who live in Bulimba, particularly, or East Brisbane, Woolloongabba, Hawthorne, Balmoral or Morningside—any of those eastern suburbs—are deeply frustrated by the road congestion along Wynnum Road. So am I, I have to say, as someone who does live in those eastern suburbs. I do have to face that congestion, like all the other commuters when heading into the city around peak hour. And if you live towards the south and you try to get in via Ipswich Road it's the same situation.
The member for Forde has moved this self-congratulatory motion about the M1 funding, when he is well aware that only one per cent of that funding is actually in the next year of the budget and that 85 per cent of it is outside the forward estimates, where it's all on the never-never. They're patting themselves on the back for making these announcements, yet, at the same time, there is no commitment on Cross River Rail—a project for which there is a clear case. It's needed, and it's needed urgently. The fact that this government is continuing to drag its heels on this important public transport project while at the same time shouting from the rooftops about the M1 is very disappointing.
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (17:45): I make this contribution tonight as a member for one of the electorates along the M1 between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. I speak as someone who represents Daisy Hill, one of the suburbs being mentioned frequently in these announcements. But I also speak as someone who has grown up almost literally next to that freeway. I have spent almost all of my life living next to that freeway between the Gold Coast and Brisbane—near the Sports Drive on ramp, near the Rochedale Road off ramp, Rochedale South, Springwood and now at Daisy Hill—so I'd like to think that I know a bit about that freeway. I'd like to think I've probably spent more time on that freeway than any of the other members in this place.
I raise that because it really is quite surprising to hear, whether it be the member for Forde or the member for Bonner—neither of them are horrible people, but it really does surprise me, and it irks me, when I hear the surprise in their voice that there's congestion on this freeway. Anyone who is in any way in touch with our community would know that this is a big, substantial problem, and has been for some time. It really stands out for me when I hear the members opposite talk about this freeway as if it's some problem that's just reared its head. It's been there for so long.
Only Labor has made real investments in that freeway. Something like $312 million was invested last time Labor was in government federally. But even more substantially, our colleagues in the state Labor government made a big commitment on the weekend, which is a tribute to Mick de Brenni, Shannon Fentiman, Cameron Dick and all the members up and down that freeway who fought for that really terrific outcome—near-term funding for the M1. That's not what the government is proposing here, which is money far down the track, as mentioned in the member for Grayndler's amendment. The state government gets it, and that's why it's investing now.
This is a government that's been around for five years now. The member for Forde has been around for something like eight years. In all of that time up to now, not a cent has been spent investing in the M1. This has a lot of history. I think a lot of people in my community will be scratching their heads wondering how it could possibly be true that the member for Forde now expects a round of applause for finally discovering, after five years of government, that there's congestion on the M1. It just beggars belief that he wants a round of applause for that. This isn't about congestion on that side of the parliament; this is about an election. This is about the fact that we've a good campaign in Forde; we've got a terrific candidate again in Des Hardman, who has fought every step of the way for proper funding for the M1. That's why, all of a sudden, we get this conversion. All of a sudden the M1's a big problem, after they've neglected it for so long.
We were the only party that went to the last election with a viable commitment for the M1. We committed $168 million, alongside state money, to upgrade the southbound M1 gateway merge. Most people know that's the main problem—though not, admittedly, the only problem—on that freeway. It's a car park at school time and it's a car park at knock-off time. We made that investment; Des Hardman and Bill Shorten and I made that investment. The government came to the party late with a sort of half-hearted commitment, which they knew wouldn't get past the state government, and so we've had people stuck in traffic for longer than was necessary because the government wanted to play political games with it. And if the member for Forde was any good, if the government was any good, if the LNP had any commitment whatsoever to the people of Logan City, this would have been fixed or started to be fixed some time ago. Instead, we have these politics being played.
Now the M1, as other speakers have said, is the busiest stretch of road in Queensland. It's one of the busiest in the country. We've known that for a long time, even if those opposite are only just waking up to it. So the member for Forde can give himself a pat on the back if he likes, but he should have been working on this for years, not just on the eve of an election. If he cared about our community, if the LNP cared about our community, if they had any sway in this federal government, they wouldn't have left the M1 and our community neglected for so long.
To the people of Logan City but also of the Gold Coast and the southern suburbs of Brisbane—the areas represented by my colleagues who have spoken so far in this debate—our message to you is simple: there is a choice at the next election between a Labor party who has always cared about that part of the world and always wanted to invest in your opportunities, or you can go those with these characters opposite, who want to pull a swiftie on you and say to you, at five minutes to midnight in an election year, that they've known all along that there was a problem. I think I know what our community will choose.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Howarth ): 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.
Infrastructure
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the role of Government leadership in ensuring the productivity and liveability of Australian cities; and
(2) notes:
(a) the importance of public transport infrastructure in shaping cities and regions;
(b) the record funding commitments for urban public transport infrastructure made under the previous Labor government, including $3.2 billion for the Regional Rail Link project and a further $3 billion committed to the Melbourne Metro rail project (Metro Tunnel);
(c) the recent Infrastructure Australia report Future Cities: Planning for our growing population, which highlights the need for Australian governments to increase investment in public transport in areas experiencing rapid population growth, including in Melbourne's west;
(d) that if an appropriate route is selected, the construction of an airport rail link to Melbourne Airport through Melbourne's west has the potential to create social and economic benefits across the region; and
(e) that further public transport infrastructure projects for fast growing regions like Melbourne's west will be needed in the near future to meet the challenge of population growth.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (17:50): I rise to support the motion that's been moved by the member for Gellibrand, because it is about Victorian rail infrastructure. I wanted to make a couple of points about how critical this is to the regions in unlocking our potential. Here is a fact: the first new rail line to be built in Victoria in decades, in almost 100 years, was the Regional Rail Link. That was funded by the former Labor government, partnered with by the state Labor government. On the opening day, I'm not surprised that we didn't have any current members of the government turn up. The shadow minister, Anthony Albanese, was there, as well as federal and state MPs. They jumped onboard with the minister for tourism, Jacinta Allen, who is a member in my part of the world, and celebrated this great achievement.
The Regional Rail Link has helped reduce travel times for people in Geelong, Bendigo and Ballarat to get into Melbourne. We are growing in the regions and we need access to fast, reliable trains. The Regional Rail Link has allowed us to have that. The $3.2 billion that was committed to Regional Rail Link really helped the regions. It allowed towns in the metro areas to have access to rail services like they never have before. It allows people living in my electorate in Woodend and Kyneton to get to town in less than an hour. Our goal in Bendigo is to one day have peak, express services from Bendigo to Melbourne in an hour. It can be achieved, if we actually have the investment and the commitment.
This is where the commitment around Melbourne's airport link comes in. The government's plan is short-sighted. It completely forgets the regions and locks the regions out of any of this investment. What the government wants to do is create a new rail link straight through Maribyrnong, straight through the north and straight to the airport. It will probably do a public/private partnership and probably give the contract out to a for-profit company. It does nothing to help the regions. People in the regions would still have to go all the way into Southern Cross, and then come out.
I support, and want to see, this government commit to an appropriate route—a route that can not only advance airport rail link but help to unlock the potential of the regions. This is why I support what state Labor has put forward: let's make Sunshine a hub. If we make Sunshine a hub, connecting to the Regional Rail Link, Bendigo, Geelong and Ballarat services can meet in Sunshine, then send from Sunshine out to the airport. People can get on at Southern Cross and come to Sunshine. Let's make Sunshine the next Southern Cross, the next hub for rail. This is how we can help people in the regions get around Victoria.
It's taken this government—the Liberal-National Party—a very long time to get onboard with Regional Rail Link. They have dragged their feet. They've not invested in the regions. It's taken a state Labor government to get onboard. We know the jobs that regional rail are generating. We know the jobs that their program of building rail is generating—lots of CFMEU members working hard to deliver, on time or ahead of time, our regional projects. This is good investment. We are also seeing in Victoria a commitment, because of state Labor, to build the rolling stock in Victoria. You can get on a train and—it's true—it says 'made in Victoria'. We are making trains again in Victoria because we had a state Labor government commit to it, and federal Labor has also committed to a national rolling stock rail plan. It can be possible. We can invest and create local jobs by building public infrastructure, whether it be the trains or whether it be the rail.
This is something that the government does not seem to care about. They don't commit to apprentices in their contracts. They demonise, victimise and bully unions who try to stand up to make sure that we have safe workplaces. We need to work in partnership with industry and we need to work in partnership with our states to deliver. That is why I support the motion that is before us. It is a genuine acknowledgement and commitment towards rail and it doesn't ignore the regions, which is what this government has done in infrastructure funding in Victoria for a long time. Let's have an appropriate route for access to the airport that continues to unlock the potential in the regions and builds upon the success that Labor started with the Regional Rail Link.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (17:55): I have to begin by saying: what a load of rubbish from the previous speaker. When it comes down to it, what we have from this federal government is a government that has directly committed to building the infrastructure to build this nation's future. The ranting and raving of those opposite and their seeking both to claim credit for this government has done and also to defend the interests of their union bosses is quite obscene. I note during the previous member's speech there was a long discussion about the role of the unions in delivering projects on time. The member never talked about it being on budget, never talked about it coming at a huge expense, never talked about Victorians getting appalling value for money on infrastructure as a consequence and never talked about the unions monopolising conduct on work sites in the construction sector.
But let's get back to the central point and the point of the motion, which is that the governments that oversee steady population growth have an obligation to plans for its consequences. Australia's population growth is 1.6 per cent a year, half of which is as a result of immigration. Therefore, we must do what we can to make sure that that growth is sustainable through proper investment and infrastructure so that it grows at a speed that this country can absorb. We will be growing by the size of Canberra each year for the next 30 years. Three-quarters of that growth will be in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth. When governments adequately plan for population growth, it can do wonders for economic prosperity, liveability and social mobility. But it must be directly backed up with infrastructure.
The coming decades will also deliver rapid technological disruption that will change the nature of the location of work. The ongoing shift from dispersed manufacturing jobs to service sectors has reversed a long-term decline in inner-city job numbers. We know service industry workers like to live close to each other, and it reduces transaction costs, breeds creativity and fuels innovation. Melbourne has this potential to be an iconic economic and cultural powerhouse and for Victoria to continue its trajectory as the leading state in this Commonwealth. We must take the growth challenges we face seriously, especially when comes to public infrastructure. Access to the public transport network is limited in the outer suburbs. A lack of connectivity to principal employment centres directly impacts on economic opportunity and social mobility.
A thorough, evidence-based infrastructure agenda can assist in reducing congestion and increasing accessibility. That is what this government is delivering. The Future cities: planning for our growing population report by Infrastructure Australia sets out three expansion scenarios for Melbourne and the transport networks needed to accommodate them. Many of these transport projects are already supported by the government, including the Melbourne Airport rail line. For the rail line, there is $5 billion of investment after more than 50 years of waiting. For the Monash Freeway, there will be additional laneways to unlock productivity in Melbourne by reducing congestion along the M1 corridor.
On rail for Monash University, the government has committed $475 million to directly connect to two major university campuses of Monash University to the existing rail network. Of course, significantly, there is regional rail—including $1.5 billion in funding—to improve services on the Ballarat line, the Gippsland line and the North East line and funding for the Murray-Basin Rail Project. On top of that, the recent budget included $50 million for an upgrade to the Geelong line in Melbourne's west. The outer metro M80 Ring Road upgrade will improve traffic flows along one of Victoria's busiest freight corridors. The government has also committed to widening the Tullamarine Freeway from Melrose Drive to Melbourne Airport.
We should never forget the important infrastructure that a growing state like Victoria needs is rail and is also road transport. We can never forget the betrayal of the people of Victoria by the Victorian state government in its abandonment of the East West Link and handing out a billion dollars in subsidies and support directly to private companies to fulfil an election promise they didn't even take seriously. It is a crucial project which is consistently acknowledged by expert opinions as key to Melbourne's future. The Commonwealth is still recording its $3 billion commitment as a contingent liability in the Commonwealth budget in the hope that the insanity that currently dominates the Victorian state government will end, and we will wake up and commit to the East West Link and to building the necessary infrastructure to grow Victoria's future.
There must also be a focus on urban congestion and maintaining our local roads, and in this regard Goldstein residents have much to celebrate in the recent budget. Funding from the Roads to Recovery Program to Bayside City Council will assist with profiling, overlay and line marking for Outer Crescent between St Andrews Street and Barkly Street.
As Liberals, we have a vision for Australia to be an influential, forward looking, modern liberal nation with unparalleled living standards. Over the next 10 years the Commonwealth will be investing over $75 billion in new and upgraded transport infrastructure projects across this great nation. We are taking this country's growth challenges seriously, just as we are in Victoria. I support the position of the government resolutely.
Mr GILES (Scullin) (18:01): I would like to be able to say it's a pleasure to follow the member for Goldstein. I would like to—but I will say that it's a pleasure to speak on this matter that the member for Gellibrand has brought before the House. The position of the governments led by the now Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth, and his predecessor, the member for Warringah, can be characterised in terms of Melbourne's infrastructure needs as, first too little, and now too late. The member for Goldstein did talk, correctly, about some of the challenges facing Melbourne—challenges and opportunities generated by the extraordinary growth Melbourne is experiencing. He was right to point to balancing the opportunities that are connected to the benefits of agglomeration, making sure they are effectively harnessed, and the concerns about the lack of accessible transport options to people in outer suburbs. He should have gone on to talk about two other things: the concern that I have, as someone who represents an outer suburban constituency, about Melbourne drifting into two cities—a prosperous core and a series of outer suburbs where the benefits of access to meaningful employment and amenity are not presented. This is a challenge that is faced by other major cities but, in Melbourne it's been exacerbated by two things: one, the extraordinary growth I referred to previously; and secondly, decisions made by the national government which have not benefited Melburnians, particularly those in Melbourne's northern suburbs.
The member for Goldstein referred to the 'thorough, evidence based infrastructure agenda'. What a joke that is, as I'm sure my friend the member for Grayndler will take us to, if he hasn't already in the course of this debate. That is an assessment that is entirely at odds with the record of this government, which started by ripping up the architecture of a national cities policy and the supporting apparatus that could ensure that such policies would be delivered. One of the very first actions of this government was, of course, to end the Major Cities Unit. While the member for Goldstein talked glowingly about current support for passenger rail in Melbourne and regional Victoria, the former Prime Minister refused to fund any urban public transport. He completely walked away from this challenge. It's so rich for government members to talk about how we can harness the benefits of agglomeration in a knowledge-intensive global city like Melbourne at the same time as it is starved of the one way in which people get into those jobs of the future in and around the CBD, which is by heavy rail transport. The starving of funding for this infrastructure has not only had a huge impact on the lives of many commuters; it has stymied the growth, the productivity growth in particular, of Melbourne and, indeed, the Australian economy.
That's the government's record. I want to recognise a government member who has made a very significant impact on this area. She is not a Melburnian; she is from Brisbane. She is the member for Ryan, who bravely led debate from a conservative perspective as a former Brisbane City councillor and in this place. When it wasn't fashionable to talk about cities, the member for Ryan led the debate. She sought to build a bipartisan consensus, and I think she made real progress. But what's her reward been? Her reward has been to lose her preselection. It is incredibly disappointing for anyone who believes in the future articulation and development of the sort of urban policy that can allow all of our cities to thrive to see someone like the member for Ryan no longer in this place—someone who reached out to build consensus, to build the evidence base that is so critical to securing the sort of productivity growth and growth in liveability and sustainability that is essential in what is the world's most urbanised nation.
This motion particularly talks about the challenges and opportunities in Melbourne's west, and the previous speaker spoke glowingly of the federal budget's commitment to the suburbs that he represents. That's not a commitment that I can share in, because the communities that make up the Scullin electorate have not been the beneficiaries of any particular largesse from this government. That stands in stark contrast to the Andrews Labor government, which has committed to the Mernda rail extension, the largest investment in a passenger rail network extension in more than 50 years. We've seen extraordinary commitments to the northern roads package. These are the sorts of commitments that are city-shaping, that are doing the right thing in terms of liveability, sustainability and, of course, boosting productivity—boosting our national income in a sustainable way, investing in our people, their talents and skills.
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (18:06): I relish this motion as an opportunity to speak about the Turnbull government's record $75 billion funding in infrastructure and financing over the next decade to get vital airport, road and rail infrastructure projects underway across the country. In my electorate of Chisholm, I have advocated for much-needed infrastructure projects, which will directly improve the transit and commute times of thousands of local residents in my electorate as well as people across Melbourne and, indeed, Victoria.
As a born and bred Melburnian, I am delighted to talk about what the Turnbull government has committed to in the 2018 budget, including $5 billion to deliver the Melbourne Airport rail link; $475 million for the planning and preconstruction of a new rail line to the Monash precinct, including Monash University; and notably $140 million for the Victorian congestion package, including targeted congestion-busting measures which will improve traffic issues from Box Hill to Mount Waverly and from Blackburn South to Burwood in my electorate of Chisholm.
The Turnbull government is taking a pragmatic and measured approach to infrastructure funding and financing that will transform our local communities in Chisholm and across Australia. We ensure value for taxpayers by committing funds that stack up economically and deliver the outcomes we need from our transport infrastructure. The good and hardworking people of Chisholm deserve value for their taxes, and I'm proud to represent them and proud to be a member of the Turnbull government—a government that recognises how important transport infrastructure is in shaping our cities and regions. Our infrastructure agenda is an important component of our national economic plan.
In Chisholm, the Monash rail link will provide a much- and long-needed public transport option for Monash University staff and students and, indeed, for all people who travel to and from this growing business precinct of Monash University and its surrounds. Last week, I joined the minister for infrastructure and development, Paul Fletcher, Minister Tudge and Monash University Chancellor, Simon McKeon, for the project announcement at the Monash University's Clayton campus, where I studied. People from across Victoria are set to greatly benefit from this project, and this funding will provide an essential public transport link in Chisholm.
Further, our approach to infrastructure reflects key policy priorities of the Turnbull government, including driving productivity and efficiency in the Australian economy, supporting economic growth and employment outcomes, and planning for the growth and effective functioning of our cities. The Turnbull government has welcomed Infrastructure Australia's report titled Future Cities and agrees with its key finding that unplanned growth will deliver poor outcomes for Australia's cities. We are addressing the challenges faced by growing cities such as Melbourne through a range of measures, including our Smart Cities Plan. The report further affirms why the Turnbull government is investing in congestion-busting projects like the Monash freeway in Chisholm and the M80 ring-road in Melbourne. Other projects like the $5 billion Melbourne Airport rail link will provide the same basic service that's available at all other major airports. Melbourne has been crying out for an airport rail link for years and years, and this will ease the pressure on existing road networks for commuters and freight operators and create thousands of new jobs for those within the city and, indeed, in regional Victoria.
The Turnbull government is setting out its commitment to a long-term plan to progressively build projects that will deliver nationally significant outcomes over the next decade, growing the national economy, shaping our major cities and ensuring we support the increasing role of our regional centres in providing access to employment opportunities. Crucially, the Turnbull government's commitment to these projects is underpinned by the strong economic growth that is flowing from our national economic plan and from our careful, pragmatic and measured stewardship of our economy. We can pay for these vital projects only by living within our means and by growing our economy, such that we ensure that essential services are provided to all Australians.
The coalition, in contrast to Labor, can be trusted to fund these projects in a sustainable and transparent manner, in a strategic manner and in a pragmatic manner. We are working towards a stronger budget to fund the essential services the people of Chisholm, and Australians nationwide, expect.
Debate adjourned.
Infrastructure
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (18:11): I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the importance of infrastructure to the future prosperity of our nation;
(2) acknowledges the actions the Government is taking in delivering a record $75 billion investment in infrastructure and transport projects focused on building local communities, connecting the regions and our cities, busting congestion and boosting productivity, while creating local jobs;
(3) notes that for the first time, the Government has committed to a 10 year infrastructure investment pipeline with the recently announced significant infrastructure projects; and
(4) congratulates the Government in working to deliver the infrastructure that will help secure Australia’s prosperity into the future.
The Turnbull government is funding and building the infrastructure of tomorrow today. This government is delivering a record $75 billion of investment in infrastructure and transport projects across Australia. This is focused on building local communities, connecting the regions and boosting productivity, all of which create local jobs. The Turnbull government is building the roads, the rail, the dams and other vital infrastructure. The budget, delivered earlier this month, includes over $24 billion for new projects and initiatives benefitting each state and territory. In a first, the government has committed to a 10-year infrastructure investment pipeline. The long-term pipeline recognises our major infrastructure projects take many years to plan, design and deliver, while showing this government will deliver the infrastructure our nation needs into the future, like the $560 million I secured for the Bunbury Outer Ring Road, which is critical infrastructure in the south-west. The sound economic policies and budget decisions of the Turnbull government make it possible to fund this type of infrastructure right around the country.
I fought hard for this road and, to my knowledge, this $560 million investment is the largest single investment project by any federal government ever in the south-west. Completing what is a stranded T-junction will reduce general and holiday congestion, improve safety and provide an efficient freight route to the Bunbury Port and its future expansion, as well as a key route to the Busselton-Margaret River Airport. The road is a major economic driver in the south-west.
Also secured was a $140 million grant and $50 million in a concessional loan in funding for the industry-led Myalup-Wellington project, a project to desalinate the Wellington Dam, and pressurised piping for the gravity-fed irrigation delivery system, as well. It will also provide economic growth through irrigated agricultural—and, as we know, water is our most precious resource. With the drying climate in the south-west, this project is critical. The government is investing in regional cities, regional towns and communities with road upgrades on Mornington Road in Wokalup, Ferguson, Boyanup and Bunbury, to name a few. This investment was over $1.1 million, funded through the Black Spot Program, making our roads safer. Three south-west bridges have or are being upgraded and in Burekup a whole new bridge was built to meet current and future transport needs.
The Turnbull government isn't just focused on transport infrastructure. We're generating economic growth through various projects in many programs, including the Mobile Black Spot towers. The Busselton foreshore redevelopment is funded partly through the Building Better Regions Fund, one that is seeing 20,000 jobs around Australia. As I've explained to the House before, this project is providing a world-class foreshore that further enhances the visitor and local experiences. The Busselton jetty is the second most visited tourist attraction in WA, with over 400,000 visitors annually. This will continue to attract visitors to the region. The Margaret River hub of entertainment, arts and regional tourism is another project that will provide economic growth. It's a multipurpose, flexible complex that will host community, cultural and business events to meet the region's long-term needs.
In addition to the economic benefits the Turnbull government's infrastructure investment creates, there's no doubt that it's contributed to the over one million new jobs created since we were elected to office. It's worth noting that last year recorded the highest employment levels on record, with 415,000 new jobs created—that's over 1,000 new jobs created daily. Again, this success should in part be attributed to our infrastructure investment.
The $9.7 million the government is contributing to the Busselton Margaret River Airport upgrade is very important to freight and regional tourism potential, enabling direct routes from both interstate and international cities, landing them directly in the doorstep of the south-west. This project should never be underestimated, and the possibilities of tourism and food and other things we have to offer in the south-west are endless. The freight component is equally as important.
The Turnbull government's infrastructure investment is bearing fruit right across Australia. Our investment is providing better connectivity and growth opportunities for our regions, as well as creating local jobs.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Howarth ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Wallace: I second the motion.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (18:16): I agree with the first part of the motion, which recognises the importance of infrastructure to the future prosperity of our nation, but, because of this government's record, I move:
Delete all words after point (1) and substitute:
(2) condemns the Government for cutting infrastructure investment from $8 billion in 2017-18 to $4.5 billion in 2021-22;
(3) notes research from the Parliamentary Budget Office which has found Commonwealth investment will fall from 0.4 to 0.2 per cent of GDP over the next decade;
(4) condemns the Government for its incompetence in underspending by $4.7 billion on its own infrastructure investment commitments in its first four budgets;
(5) notes that off budget financing of public transport projects is misleading; and
(6) condemns the Government for failing to deliver investment to construct the Melbourne airport rail line, Western Sydney rail or Brisbane cross-river rail project.
The fact is that this budget is a con when it comes to infrastructure investment. If you look at the forward estimates for this year's budget compared with last year's, there is $2 billion less in this year's forward estimates than there was last year—a $2 billion cut. If that's too difficult for people opposite to comprehend, this year, in 2017-18, the infrastructure investment is $8 billion, and it falls to $4.5 billion; it is there in the budget papers for all to see.
There is no new money in this budget. What there is is an allocation of money that has already been included in previous budgets for specific projects. But that funding is all off into the never-never. When you look at projects like Monash, for example, which was mentioned by a previous speaker, there was $475 million. How much is it over the next four years? It is $20-something million of that. It is all off into the never, never. You had a $5 billion announcement about Melbourne Airport rail line. If you look for money for construction in the budget, there is not a dollar. There is not a dollar for construction. It is just a con—the idea that somehow it can be done for free, that somehow public transport projects in our cities make money. It is not real. You would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Howarth, that the Redcliffe rail line was built as a result of real dollars put into budgets by federal Labor, state Labor and Moreton Bay Regional Council. That's how you build real infrastructure—with real dollars that create real jobs that can get built. That's why, when you look at Western Sydney rail, as well—another big announcement made by the Commonwealth government but with no actual dollars for construction in the budget—not one. $50 million for a study—that is all there is there. And yet this is a rail line that is meant to be opened at the same time as the second Sydney Airport.
Once again in the budget, you see some funding, in the never-never, for Sunshine Coast rail upgrades. But you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that in order to have that, you need to have the Cross River Rail project. You can't expand rail on the Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast or Brisbane without fixing up the capacity constraints from having just one crossing across the Brisbane River.
When you look at what this government has done across the board, it is to substitute reality for just spin and rhetoric. Over the coalition's first four budgets, if you look at what it said it would spend on budget night in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017, and go back and look at what was actually invested, the underspend is $4.7 billion—a $4.7 billion underspend on road projects, rail projects, black spots program, Heavy Vehicle Safety Program. On all of those programs there were massive underspends, which then disappears off to Finance and Treasury. This is a government that doesn't have a plan for long-term infrastructure investment, that hasn't produced a pipeline of projects, that has gutted Infrastructure Australia and, therefore, will damage Australia's future economic growth and prosperity.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Howarth ): Is the amendment seconded?
Ms Bird: I second the amendment.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (18:22): I'm quite happy to speak to the original motion. The Sunshine Coast has a fast-growing population of more than 330,000 people and lies only 100 kilometres north of Brisbane. Yet for decades we've lived with a deadly two-lane highway and a single-track railway line built in the Victorian period and designed to carry farm produce in steam-shrouded locomotives. It is not good enough. People in our community ran out of patience with our antiquated infrastructure years and years ago.
Since before I was nominated as a candidate to be the federal member for Fisher, I have been determined to try and fix it. We started straightaway. Through my advocacy and that of the federal member for Fairfax and our colleagues in Team Queensland—you're one of them, Mr Deputy Speaker Howarth—in 2016 this government announced $734 million in federal funding to upgrade the Bruce Highway between Caloundra Road and the Sunshine Motorway. $734 million, and those works are actually happening as we speak. This dangerous bottleneck has been the site of too many fatal accidents and is one of the main gateways to our community. It has been inspiring to see the works begin on that stretch and it has spurred us on to do even more. In the 2017 budget we secured another $650 million from the Turnbull government for more upgrades, this time south of Caloundra, to extend the six-lane section, increase flood-proofing and improve important intersections.
After $1.3 billion in just two years, I was hopeful but realistic about what we might achieve for the coast's infrastructure in the 2018 budget, but this government has smashed even my highest expectations. We needed more funds for Bruce to add an extra lane all the way from the coast to Brisbane. We needed upgrades to junctions in North Brisbane to reduce congestion on the way into the city, and north of the coast we knew there was more work to be done to create a safer and more usable highway. The Minister for Infrastructure, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Treasurer listened to the needs of our constituents and responded with three massive additional investments in the 2018-19 budget. The government has allocated $880 million for upgrades between Caloundra and Pine Rivers, which will finally allow us to add an extra lane both ways all the way from Brisbane to the coast. We allocated $150 million for the Murrumba Downs section north of Brisbane to ease congestion at a key bottleneck, which you, Mr Deputy Speaker Howarth, would be well aware of. Finally, just north of my electorate, in the electorate of my friend the member for Wide Bay, the government has committed an extra $800 million to complete section D of the Cooroy to Curra bypass. This government has invested in total $3.13 billion in upgrading the Bruce Highway between the Sunshine Coast and Brisbane—investment which will get our commuters home safer and sooner, giving them more time with the family and less time stuck on what is becoming Australia's largest car park.
The member for Fairfax and I know, however, that we are kidding ourselves if we think that we're going to resolve our transport problems just by adding lanes to the Bruce Highway. We also need to duplicate our antiquated rail line and, if possible, deliver a new high-speed line to service the growing population centres of the coastal strip. Here too the Turnbull government has delivered where too many in the past have not. This budget includes $390 million towards the duplication of the north coast rail between Beerburrum and Landsborough and further upgrades north of Fisher. We need the state Labor government now to get on board and stump up their half of the money required. When they've done that, when they've put in their fair share, these upgrades will deliver more regular and reliable train services and get more freight off the Bruce and onto rail.
I'm delighted to say that the government is also looking to the future and has chosen the North Coast Connect high-speed rail project as one of only three in the country to receive millions of dollars in funding for a detailed business case. This high-speed rail project would deliver 45-minute travel times from Nambour and Maroochydore to Brisbane. I can't wait to see the outcomes of this study and I look forward to advocating for the money needed to build this high-speed rail when we have the results.
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (18:27): Like shadow minister Mr Albanese, I agree that the member for Forrest's sentiment in the original motion before the House is correct. I also agree that investment in infrastructure is critically important to regional development, economic diversification and jobs. However, I was very pleased to second the amendment moved by the member for Grayndler because I think this government, to be quite honest, has a lot to answer for when it comes to infrastructure in regional areas. It wouldn't surprise people to hear me say that, because they've been absolutely appalling in my area—in fact, absolutely absent from all of the issues and challenges we have around infrastructure.
Mr Andrew Pearson, who's a journalist with the Illawarra Mercury, explored the most recent budget. He reported that, when he searched for Wollongong or the Illawarra, he got the simple message: 'no results found to match your search'. This has been the story of this government since the very first budget after they were elected. In the last budget of the Labor government there was $42 million for the Mount Ousley Road upgrades and $50 million to progress the Maldon-Dombarton rail link. In the first budget of former Prime Minister Tony Abbott this government took away that $50 million for progressing that important rail link. That rail links connects south-west and Western Sydney to the port at Kembla.
For the information of the chamber, it's not just me as the Labor member who has acknowledged the significant importance of this rail link; councils, state members and federal members across all political parties who are involved in the seats in that broader region have acknowledged the significant importance of this rail link. We need to get it progressed. In fact, a state government report, which my colleague the member for Wollongong in the state parliament was able to get hold of, tells us that in the very near future if we don't take action there will be at most eight pathways available for freight on the current Illawarra line and potentially none on the eastern seaboard to the port of Kembla.
By contrast—and what frustrates me about this particular debate—these issues are well known, have been well canvassed and have been well reported on, so I'm absolutely at a loss to understand why this government, over all the time it has been in charge since 2013, has not invested anything in the transport infrastructure in Wollongong and the Illawarra more broadly. If it's just because the people had the temerity to elect me as a Labor member, I think that's an absolute indictment on a national government who should have the best interests of the whole nation at heart. By contrast, I just want to make it clear to the chamber that the former federal Labor government invested significantly in infrastructure in my area. There was the $42 million I mentioned for the Mount Ousley Road upgrade, $4 million for a new truck stop on the Mount Ousley Road and $4.67 million in improvements to the Picton Road. There was $28.8 million to progress the Maldon to Dombarton rail link and then a further $50 million added in our final budget. There was $15.7 million towards black spots and local roads. That was significant transport infrastructure. There has been nothing like that, nothing at all, since this government came to power.
Of course, infrastructure doesn't stop at transport infrastructure. There was also investment in communications infrastructure, in health infrastructure, in education infrastructure and in tourism infrastructure in my region, and particularly in my seat, when we were in government. For example, there was $6.6 million towards local parks, footpaths and cycleways; $863,000 towards upgrading the North Beach Bathers' Pavilion; $125,000 for CCTV on the Blue Mile project; and $100,000 for the Sumatran tiger exhibition at Symbio Wildlife Park. In health, there was $12.1 million for the Illawarra Cancer Care Centre at Wollongong Hospital, $5 million for a clinical teaching and training facility at Wollongong Hospital and $950,000 in upgrades to GP clinics. In addition to that, for community infrastructure, there was $457,000 to refurbish the Snakepit for the Illawarra Basketball Association and $3.9 million for repairs and maintenance of public housing. We invested, and it's time this government learnt where Wollongong is.
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (18:32): I rise to speak in support of the original motion, as moved by the member for Forrest, which rightly recognises the importance of infrastructure for the future prosperity of our nation, especially for my electorate of Robertson. With around one in four people across the Central Coast commuting long distances to work each day, leaving early in the morning and returning late at night to their families, local families know all too well why we need the sort of infrastructure that this motion outlines. This includes transport projects focused on building local communities, connecting the regions and our cities, busting congestion and boosting productivity, while also creating local jobs.
These are the sorts of projects the coalition has been delivering in my electorate: NorthConnex, the M1-M2 missing link and M1 upgrades between the Kariong and Somersby interchanges. There's more to come, thanks to the commitment that this government is making to deliver a record $75 billion investment in infrastructure across Australia. For the first time, the government has committed to a 10-year infrastructure investment pipeline. Unlike those opposite who talk of spending without any plan for the economy, we're taking a responsible approach to infrastructure funding and financing that ensures value for taxpayers. We are only committing funds that stack up economically and which deliver the outcomes we need from our transport infrastructure.
Recently, we've seen yet another example of this on the Central Coast, with what has informally been described as 'project 60'. It has aim of getting those hardworking commuters I talked about earlier from the coast to Sydney in 60 minutes. It's one of the hottest issues in my region, and quite rightly, because some say that the old red rattlers could get to Sydney quicker than trains on the Central Coast line these days. There are, of course, a number of good reasons for the current speed issues; but if you're standing in a packed train with no mobile coverage and no seat, just staring at the carriage door, who can blame you for dreaming about a better way and asking your local members to help deliver it? This dream could one day become a reality thanks to this government.
It was fantastic to stand alongside my state colleagues and local business representative Rod Dever at Gosford station recently to commit funding, with the New South Wales government, to help produce a detailed business case aimed at cutting down train travel times between Sydney and Newcastle. The focus will be on reducing times overall on that stretch of track from three hours to just two, including along the Central Coast. I'm advised that the business case will look at options like straightening tracks, upgrading existing infrastructure, such as level crossings, or addressing other needs along what is a complex, mountainous terrain. Having a detailed business case will allow us to do the responsible, essential research to maximise the advantages of such a potential project.
As this work continues over the next 12 to 18 months, we're also rolling out our commitment to continuous mobile phone coverage for commuters along the 60 kilometre-section of track from Wyong to Hornsby. Such is the demand for action on this election commitment, I'm receiving correspondence every few days from people asking for updates, and we've just produced a new commuter newsletter that I'll be handing out at stations over the next couple of weeks to give our hardworking Central Coast commuters the information they need. We'll be telling them that this election commitment is on track, that a tender process is being finalised—with work to start over the next few months—and that better mobile coverage will be switched on by the end of next year.
The federal government is investing $12 million and the New South Wales government $4 million for this. Part of the project is for free wi-fi at train stations as well, which is great for productivity and also to help keep people connected. As Zac from Springfield put it, 'The reception on the train line is shocking, so being able to do laptop work on the train would massively help me and thousands of Coasties.' And—as the Prime Minister said—it'll make work time more productive, enhance leisure time and help families and friends connect. This is one of the most practical things we could do for families on the Central Coast.
We're also hearing the frustrations of commuters who can't get a car space or who are driving in early and sleeping in their cars for an hour from 4 am or 5 am just to get a spot at the local train stations. I've raised this issue with council, and we're looking at every solution possible. We're also running a petition that will be included in our community news. I call on anyone who has this concern to sign the petition and add their voice.
Finally, it must be highlighted that our commitment to these projects is underpinned by the strong economic growth that we've seen in this budget, which is flowing from our national economic plan. We can only pay for these vital projects—projects that make a real and demonstrable difference to communities like mine—by living within our means and by growing our economy. I commend the original motion to the House.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (18:37): Another coalition government budget, and yet another kick in the guts for Canberra. Last year, we saw next to no—well, it was less than one per cent—investment in infrastructure in the budget from this government. It was a paltry $3 million out of a $75 billion spend. And that $3 million went to business reviews, business cases, upgrading lighting and upgrading air-conditioning systems. Yes, some could extrapolate those things to be infrastructure. Most people would probably just regard them as being for a facility upgrade or maintenance of a particular service. But that was the slap in the face that Canberrans got last year from this government, from those opposite, in terms of the infrastructure spend: $3 million out of $75 billion. Deputy Speaker, do you know what that works out to in terms of percentages? It was 0.004 per cent of the infrastructure budget invested in Canberra last year!
This year, we were doing handstands: this year, we got 0.2 per cent of the infrastructure investment budget in our nation's capital—in Canberra. So we were absolutely doing handstands after the appalling level that we got last year. But, again, it was less than one per cent, and it just goes to show the complete and utter disdain that those opposite have for our nation's capital—their complete and utter disdain and their sustained attack. We saw it in 1996, when the government basically decimated the town. The Howard government decimated this town, with 15,000 public service jobs cut, local shopping centres closing down and people leaving town. We went from three federal electoral seats to two, and we've only just got one back, after all this time—after more than 20 years. That's what coalition governments mean for Canberra: decimation, loss of population, loss of jobs and less than one per cent—next to zero—investment in infrastructure.
Compare that to a Labor government. When Labor were in power, we invested in the Majura Parkway—a $144 million investment. The Majura Parkway, after 40 years, finally connected Canberra, from north to south, for the first time. We had one side of Canberra connected, but we had to wait for 40 years for the other side of the town to be connected. That's what Labor's investment in the Majura Parkway did. Labor invested $18.5 million in the Monaro Highway, improving traffic safety congestion and travel times around Canberra. Labor invested $2 million in community infrastructure to upgrade Eddison and Glebe parks.
We invested in education, including $300 million for upgrades and new facilities for primary schools, high schools, and education and training facilities. These investments included $131 million for 136 BER projects in Canberra. This benefitted 67 schools by providing 17 new libraries, 23 multipurpose halls and 29 covered outdoor learning areas. We invested $5.7 million in the Canberra region Pathways training centre at St Mary MacKillop College, St Clare's College and two other schools on the north side. And we invested $8.1 million in the Tuggeranong Sustainable Living Trade Training Centre.
The list goes on. We invested $600,000 to fix six dangerous black spots on local roads. The Regional Cancer Centre at the Canberra Hospital was the product of a $29.7 million investment from a Labor government. Canberra Hospital is a hospital serving not just Canberra, but the capital region. Even our national institutions were better off with a Labor government: $39.3 million was spent to protect historical artefacts and artworks; $20 million went to the National Arboretum; $42 million was spent on the Constitution Avenue upgrade; and $2. 5 million was spent for better lighting at Manuka Oval. These are just some of the important investments Labor have made to Canberra, because we understand that a prosperous nation depends on a prosperous national capital. That requires investment in schools, in hospitals, in roads and in infrastructure. Sir Robert Menzies understood that; it's a pity those opposite don't. (Time expired)
Mr DRUM (Murray) (18:42): This motion by the member for Forrest needs to be acknowledged as one that gives everybody an opportunity to talk about the opportunities for their electorates to revel in this unprecedented amount of $75 billion over the next 10 years in relation to infrastructure funding. It's a record amount of spending: an average of about $8 billion per annum in the forward estimates, increasing as this next decade goes on; $33.9 billion between 2018-19 and 2021-22. This ever-increasing amount of funding that the federal government is putting aside for infrastructure—nation-building infrastructure; infrastructure that has the capacity to create further investment—needs to be acknowledged for what it is, and the member for Forrest has done very well to move this motion.
It's also worth acknowledging that this historically high spending on transport infrastructure is happening at exactly the same time that the government is bringing the budget back into surplus. No more are we living in an era where we are spending $100 million a day more than we are actually making. The time has come to reduce our overall spending, when you compare it to GDP, and that's what we've been able to do. We can now show all of Australia that while we are going to have this enormously high level of infrastructure spending, we're also going to be able to return the budget to surplus as early as 12 months away. That is something that everybody in Australia should be rightfully proud of.
As I said earlier, we need to be looking at ways that we can actually take advantage of this situation for our own electorates. We have a $10 billion rail project called the Inland Rail generating this opportunity for our freight to hit the ports of Brisbane, Sydney or Melbourne, whichever is the preferred option, via rail. This is where my electorate comes into being, because the Port of Melbourne is a very high-profile and high-throughput port. The Goulburn Valley certainly feeds the Port of Melbourne, as we produce so much food—82,000 tonnes of horticulture; 105,000 tonnes of pears, which is 86 per cent of Australia's total pear production; 70 per cent of Australia's total peach production; and over a quarter of Australia's dairy output. The vast majority of that is heading out through the Port of Melbourne. Into the future, we'd like to see that transport put through on a standardised gauge line. It might be emanating from Narrandera/Tocumwal right down through that food bowl of southern New South Wales, coming through the Goulburn Valley and then onto Mangalore, where it will join up with the Inland Rail to a distribution centre to the north of Melbourne, then finding it's then through to the Port of Melbourne.
These types of nation-building infrastructure need to have a fund that can be called on. We certainly need to have a vision, a very clear understanding about what we need to do, about the Goulburn Valley and the Southern Riverina. If it's not going to be the direct route that the Inland Rail is going to go through, then we need to have a very clear vision as to how we can facilitate the transport of all this produce, not to mention the burgeoning cotton industry that also needs to find its way to port.
It's not just rail that we are looking at; the Goulburn Valley has long been in the line for a better road network as well. You'll probably find more trucks registered Shepparton than in any other city in Australia, on a per capita basis. Primarily, that's because it's on all the main routes. Whether you're going east-west from Bendigo across to Wangaratta or whether you're going north-south down the Newell Highway from Melbourne to Brisbane on the Great Inland Way, you'll go through Shepparton. Literally thousands of trucks are registered there, and they're going to need a decent bypass. I know the state will need to do all the pre-work logistics, but once that's done there will need to be serious investment that this government can provide and that other governments have been unable to provide in the past.
Dr MIKE KELLY (Eden-Monaro) (18:47): I am pleased the member raised this motion. It gives me the opportunity to tie together two things—the theme that I raised in the other chamber earlier this day in relation to the standard of our politics, and infrastructure issues. Certainly we salute the idea of infrastructure as being important for nation building and the future of our nation. Downstairs I spoke about wanting to raise political standards in relation to gender balance, but also in relation to comments made by Senator Molan in the Senate in this building. He has resorted to the lowest form of personal abuse and character assassination in his comments directed at me. In all my time involved in politics, I have never personally insulted or impugned the integrity of any person in this place, ever. I have never personally impugned another member in this place.
An honourable member: On the record!
Dr MIKE KELLY: On the record, and off the record as well. I never impugned anyone's credibility or integrity in this place—never. So the conduct of the senator is quite dishonourable, and I would like him to review that conduct, considering in particular that we have been friends for the last 20 years and I have defended him assiduously against allegations that he was responsible for war crimes in Iraq, which I think were scurrilous assertions. So I would ask him to reconsider his approach to politics. He's only been in this business for five minutes and has already sunk to this degree, possibly under the influence of advisers.
The comments that he made were in association with so-called 'benefits projects' in Eden-Monaro in the budget under infrastructure. He said, 'In my home of Eden-Monaro,' and then went on to refer to a $100 million investment in the Monaro Highway upgrade. Every single cent of that $100 million will be spent in the ACT, so this is money not being spent in Eden-Monaro at all. So it is disingenuous and misleading to state that.
Senator Molan has also commented on a hundred million dollars being allocated to the Barton Highway upgrade package. The coalition—Senator Seselja and many others—have been out there claiming they support full duplication of the Barton Highway and saying they're going to spend this money on it. When we look at it, there's $15 million allocated this financial year. That's going to tree trimming, safety barriers, signage et cetera. Not one cent of that is going to duplication. Then we had the admission, which was pursued by the Yass Tribune, that the $100 million is actually out there in the forward estimates. It's not going to be allocated to duplication, because they've indicated there's going to be a business case into duplication. You can't go out there and say, 'We are going to duplicate,' or, 'There is a commitment to duplication' if you're saying that it all depends on a business case which we're yet to see the details of.
I contrast that with the complete and direct commitment by both the state Labor opposition and the federal Labor opposition, which say, 'We will do full duplication of the Barton Highway if our governments are elected on the usual 80-20 per cent split.' The reason we're so committed is that that project is critical to the economic health of the entire region of southern New South Wales, because we want to exploit the potential in the Port of Eden. That's another disingenuous comment made by Mr Molan—he's claimed that there's $10 million that has been dedicated by the government to the Port of Eden project, with some being allocated from that this year. Every single cent of that $10 million was won by me and put in the bank in June 2013. It's been sitting there, waiting for this project to get rolling. So the money that's being allocated now is against that $10 million, and it was our money; it was Labor's money towards that project. The Port of Eden offers us huge potential in tourism benefits. When that wharf extension project is completed, we'll be able to bring in massive cruise liners at least once a week, which will be bringing in potentially 2,000 tourists at a pop. It will be a great benefit. I want to pay tribute to state coalition colleagues who've weighed in for the extra money to make that project a goer. It shows that we're all signing up to the vision and potential of the Port of Eden.
Our cherry growers in the west want to come across and start using international freight out of Canberra Airport. Our oyster growers on the coast—all our great primary producers in this region—want to use the potential that Canberra international airport provides us. The Barton Highway will be a key piece of that, including for the upgrades of the Visy pulp mill and also for the benefits of the renewable energy projects we're going to see. So this is critical infrastructure. I'd just ask the government to get on with it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Howarth ): The time allotted for the debate having expired, the debate is interrupted. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 18:53
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Australasian New Car Assessment Program
(Question No. 945)
Mr Albanese asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in writing, on 1 March 2018:
1) Is he aware that Commonwealth funding for the Australasian New Car Assessment Program runs out this financial year.
2) Will he commit to providing this vital road safety organisation with long term certainty by agreeing to fund it for a further five years.
Mr McCormack: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
1) I have agreed to provide the Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) with a total of $6.64 million in funding over the next five years (2018-19 to 2022‑2023).
2) N/A.
Aged Care Facilities
(Question No. 955)
Mr Zappia asked the Minister for Aged Care, in writing, on 28 March 2018:
(1) In respect of the Oakden Older Persons Mental Health Service (OPMHS); have there been any visitors under the Commonwealth Community Visitors Scheme in the last 5 calendar years; and if so; on how many occasions were visits made.
(2) Has the department received any complaints about the Oakden Aged Care Facility over the past 5 calendar years and if so; (a) how many, and (b) what action was taken in response.
(3) How many reports have been made to police by aged care providers in respect of incidents occurring within aged care facilities in the past 5 calendar years which were of a reportable nature.
(4) How many (a) announced, and (b) unannounced, visits were made to aged care facilities by Department of Health staff or other agencies contracted to the department in (i) 2013, (ii) 2014, (iii) 2015, (iv) 2016, and (v) 2017.
(5) Has the Department of Health recommended to the Carnell Inquiry (Review of National Aged Care Quality Regulatory Processes, Kate Carnell and Ron Paterson, October 2017), that the Department should conduct unannounced visits to aged care facilities and if so; when will such visits commence.
(6) How many complaints have been made to the Department about aged care facilities in (a) 2015, (b) 2016, and (c) 2017.
(7) In the past 5 calendar years, (a) how many aged care facilities have had their accreditation withdrawn, and (b) have any aged care facilities been prosecuted for breach of accreditation standards.
Mr Wyatt: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) In respect of the Commonwealth Community Visitors Scheme (CVS), the Department does not collect data on the services visited, or the number of visits made. Individual Auspices (CVS providers) will have details on which residential aged care facilities their volunteers visit and how many visits are conducted to those facilities.
(2) (a) Yes, the Department received four complaints about the Oakden Aged Care Facility over the past five calendar years to October 2017. (b) These complaints are detailed below.
Aged Care Complaints Scheme:
2013 Anonymous Complaint – Behaviour management, staff ratios & food issues.
The scheme undertook an investigation including an unannounced site visit. No evidence to support the concerns raised.
2014 Complaint - Service Provider Resolution – Staff calling in sick not replaced, clinical issue, staff skills, incident reporting. The Aged Care Complaint Scheme (the Scheme) found no evidence to support the concerns raised.
Aged Care Complaints Commissioner:
March 2017 Anonymous Complaint – assault of residents. The complaint was referred to the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency (Quality Agency). Australian Government sanctions were already in place at the service.
May 2017 Complaint from family member – issue from 2014 care of mother's clinical needs, food and drink. No further action taken as service had been closed following a South Australian (SA) government decision to close the service while sanctions were in place. The complaint was directed to the SA Government who were reviewing the Care Recipient file.
(3) Providers are required to make all reports to the Department and to police of a reportable nature. This includes incidents of both missing residents and assaults on residents at services by another party. A table detailing the number of reports is at Attachment A.
(4) (a-b)Announced and unannounced visits are not undertaken by the Department as this is a function of the Quality Agency. Information on announced and unannounced visits made by the Quality Agency is at Attachment B.
(5) On 17 March 2018 I announced changes to legislation that mean all re-accreditation visits by the Quality Agency will be unannounced visits. This legislation applies to all residential care services applying for re-accreditation from 1 July 2018, and those with an accreditation expiry date on, or after, 1 January 2019.
(6) Complaints regarding aged care facilities made to the Aged Care Complaints Scheme:
(a) 2015 – 3,719
Complaints regarding aged care facilities made to the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner:
(b) 2016 – 4,460
(c) 2017 – 4, 974
(7) (a) In the last five calendar years 27 approved providers have had their accreditation withdrawn (revoked) by the Quality Agency. (b) The Quality Agency does not have prosecutorial powers.
Attachment A
(3) Reports to the police of a reportable nature are made for both care recipients absent from the service and assaults on residents at services by another party.
Calendar Year |
Missing Care Recipient |
Reportable Assault |
2013 |
1,083 |
2,501 |
2014 |
1,046 |
2,417 |
2015 |
1,195 |
2,797 |
2016 |
1,162 |
2,858 |
2017 |
1,226 |
3,064 |
Attachment B
(4) The table below breaks down by calendar year announced and unannounced visits by the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency (Quality Agency).
Calendar year |
Announced Visits |
Unannounced Visits |
2013 |
2,409 |
3,521 |
2014 |
1,946 |
3,048 |
2015 |
2,199 |
2,499 |
2016 |
1,041 |
2,964 |
2017 |
1,350 |
2,763 |
Grand Total |
8,945 |
14,795 |
Note - the number of visits (announced and unannounced) conducted by the Quality Agency each year will vary based on the timing of the three year reaccreditation cycle. When a facility is subject to full reaccreditation (announced), then the number of unannounced visits may be lower. In some years, such as 2015, there are a large number of facilities due for reaccreditation hence the variation in the number and type of visits each year.